Google Launches International Campaign For Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

Apple and many other tech companies have offered benefits to same-sex couples (and sometimes made them a sticking point) for quite some time now, but Google is taking its position of inclusion for sexual minorities outside the company itself; the company has announced an international campaign to promote legal marriage equality for same-sex couples, called "Legalize Love." According to CNN's version of the story, while this represents Google's policies overall, the campaign will at first "focus on countries like Singapore, where certain homosexual activities are illegal, and Poland, which has no legal recognition of same-sex couples." dot429 quotes Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe of Google, speaking in London Saturday at a summit where the initiative was announced: "We want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office. It is obviously a very ambitious piece of work." Also at CNET.

Comments

it's a plot.

[Anonymous Coward]

See corporations are people without gender. They want to be able to marry each other.

Then they can file a joint tax return and have children.

Re:it's a plot.

[interkin3tic]

It will be their undoing. Corporations were immortal, but marriage and kids kill anyone.

Re:it's a plot.

[M1FCJ]

I thought those were called a merger and a spin-off in that order.

World Pride 2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly worth noting that on Saturday in London was World Pride 2012, and representatives from Google were among the groups in the parade (photo)

Re:World Pride 2012

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you be proud of something you didn't choose? It's like me saying that I'm proud of the color of my eyes. I understand that these people had a difficult time until very recently, and many still do in some countries, but proud of what exactly?

--
Sundar Pichai is the utter asshole whose incompetence resulted in the shutdown of Google's Atlanta office. Fuck you Sundar!

Re:World Pride 2012

[M1FCJ]

It means they're not ashamed of what sex they are. That's an important thing when you are being oppressed by others and the law.

Re:World Pride 2012

[Abreu]

You'd have to ask a gay person, but in this context, I interpret "Pride" as "not being ashamed".

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[codewarren]

Because the mind of a 7-year-old is not mature enough to know whether or not it really wants to marry anyone, let alone a 68-year old. I don't see why that's relevant.

Why not start at home?

[sandytaru]

The US still has a long way to go for full LGBT equality. I can understand stuff like trying to stop stoning of homosexuals in countries where it is illegal, but as for the same-sex marriage fight, it hasn't even been won on the home front yet. I hate to call it a war... but why expand the territory of a war when you're still losing battles in disputed territory you're trying to occupy?

Re:Why not start at home?

[codewarren]

I'd mod you up if I had not already commented, here. This was exactly what I was thinking. If I were a bigot in Poland, I think I would be a bit incensed by Google telling me I have to treat LGBTs equally in my country when they aren't treated equally even in Google's own home country.

Re:Why not start at home?

[0123456]

I believe you'll find that most non-Americans are already a bit incensed about American companies telling them how to run their country. I suspect this kind of behaviour is more likely to increase the backlash than help anyone's human rights.

Re:Why not start at home?

[Kell Bengal]

Because it's not that kind of war. Social struggles have no 'front' - the fight takes place everywhere, all at once. And in a struggle of public consensus the more battles you start, the more likely you are to succeed at each (cf. Arab Spring for snow-balling social-political change). We should start as many campaigns as our resources allow, for the benefit of everyone.

Re:Why not start at home?

[Sarten-X]

Exactly what I was coming to say.

Social change is a change in society's perception, rather than changing physical location, so you have to adapt the strategy to suit the need. Having 20% acceptance in five countries is more likely to spread change than having 100% acceptance in only a single country, because each country's acceptance grows on its own. In terms of a battle, this is a divide-and-conquer strategy, In terms of biology (a more appropriate analogy, IMHO), it's growing a flower garden from a hundred seeds rather than one.

In America, the "war" has already been won, as far as it will be for quite a while. Sexuality rights are at about the point that racial equality was during the 1960s: The most egregious laws have been fixed, and members of the oppressed groups fear bigots more than than the government. There are still enough bigots in the government, though, that continuing progress is stalled. Now we simply wait, taking every chance we can to point out that everyone, regardless of orientation, is still a person. Eventually enough bigots will die or retire, while the younger generation (who has grown up with the message of acceptance) takes office. Then the next round of change will happen, where all discrimination based on sexuality will be prohibited. Sure, there's always room for improvement... one more state allowing marriage, one more hate crime denounced nation-wide by the media, or one more teenager who's able to come out without being disowned by their family. It's unlikely, though, that any of that will significantly speed acceptance. The bigots are set in their ways.

What about ladyboys?

[WhiteHover]

Google promoting same sex marriage is great and all, but what about ladyboys and the so called third gender? No, you cannot lump it under homosexuality as it's a different issue. Same sex marriage is old thing, everyone should fight for people's right to be whatever gender - or a third gender - if they so want to. Even on Slashdot I always get modded down when I mention ladyboys, and I hope not this time because this issue needs to see some daylight.

Re:What about ladyboys?

[hawguy]

Google promoting same sex marriage is great and all, but what about ladyboys and the so called third gender? No, you cannot lump it under homosexuality as it's a different issue. Same sex marriage is old thing, everyone should fight for people's right to be whatever gender - or a third gender - if they so want to. Even on Slashdot I always get modded down when I mention ladyboys, and I hope not this time because this issue needs to see some daylight.

The distinction between straight, homosexual, bisexual, and transgender marriage should matter only to the couple that's marrying. There's no reason the government needs to make a distinction.

If a male->female part time cross dresser is in love with and wants to marry a female->male post-op transexual, why is it anyone's business but the couple? There's no need to make up another "gender", just take gender out of the marriage equation entirely.

Re:What about ladyboys?

[mister_playboy]

What about ladyboys? The term is associated with a specific type of prostitution in SE Asia (particularly Thailand) and I'm under the impression it's a concept created by pimps looking for something exotic to offer rather than a naturally occurring group of guys who want to be girls. That is to say, the term denotes a kind of profession rather than an identity.

Unless something has changed over the last few years, no one in the US LGBTQ community uses this term when arguing about rights.

Re:What about ladyboys?

[WhiteHover]

It shouldn't matter to marriage, but it should matter to other things where your gender is defined, like passport. Some transgenders want to identity as third gender instead of the opposite of their old gender.

Re:What about ladyboys?

[Samantha Wright]

By the time you get to the "T" in "LGBT", you're pretty much too open-minded for that to be a concern. Or are you saying "I want employee registration forms where the gender field is a variable-length string instead of a one-bit value"?

Re:What about ladyboys?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if as a man I marry a woman you're fine giving me tax breaks, but if I as a man marry a man, you're not fine giving me tax breaks? Sounds like you have more of a problem with me marrying a man than you do with giving me tax breaks.

Re:What about ladyboys?

[hawguy]

It is other people's business as soon as there are tax breaks or any other government "perks" or benefits to a legally recognized union. That's because the breaks and benefits are funded by the people as a nation.

Tax breaks? There's often a marriage penalty for filing jointly. In some cases there's a tax benefit, but not all. But if the tax benefit of getting married is all that's stopping federal recognition of same-sex marriages, let's get rid of it for everyone (and I say that as a married person, but we file separately because there's no tax benefit for us to file jointly)

No tax breaks? No free daycare? No benefits to any union between consenting adults? No costs to tax payers? Then I don't care what you do.

Free daycare? How do I sign up for that marriage benefit? My wife and I seem to have missed that one. But even if free daycare was a benefit of marriage, presumably it's there to help children, so why shouldn't a same-sex couple with children qualify for the benefit? Or do you only support children who have opposite-sex parents?

None of the married couples I know (whether same sex or different sex) married for the tax-cuts or other monetary rewards from the government - aside from wanting to demonstrate commitment to each other via mamrriage, they are more interested in the legal protections offered by a state and federally recognized marriage (things like parental rights, easier adoption as a married couple, hospital visitation rights, ability to make decisions about spouse's medical care and disposition of body after death, easier access to partners funds after death of a spouse, ability to continue a lease after death of a partner, bereavement or FMLA protected leave to care for a sick spouse, protections via divorce)

Re:What about ladyboys?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

where the gender field is a variable-length string instead of a one-bit value

640K of gender bits ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:What about ladyboys?

[couchslug]

Fight for a totally gender-neutral legal world rather than recognition of variety.

We don't segregate by earlobe size, so cunts and cocks and nullos shouldn't matter much either.

Re:What about ladyboys?

[boneglorious]

You might be getting modded down because you call them ladyboys. Use that term with your ladyboy friends if you want, but it might be better for the most part to go with more accepted terms like transgender and intersexed. It just sounds a little more respectful, so it's easier for people to hear your message.

Re:What about ladyboys?

[MightyMartian]

Ending Separate But Equal and bans on interracial marriage had tax implications as well.

Re:What about ladyboys?

[realityimpaired]

You're an idiot, and a troll.

That being said...

Gender is DNA, X and Y Chromosomes. Anything else is not scientific and is religious in nature (ie Belief system). Yes, I'm aware of Chromosomal Defects that create an extra X or Y Chromosome, but those are genetic deformities (like Down's Syndrome), and are easily mapped via DNA sequencing.

The problem with defining a person's sex in terms of DNA is that there's not really any rhyme or reason to how a person's DNA determines their outward physical appearance. You mention people with an extra X or Y, but there's a *much* wider gamut of possible combinations... XX and XY are the two most people know about. There's also XYY, XXX, XXY, YYY and YY, all of which are common enough that you almost certainly know somebody who has one of these conditions. There's also XX males, and XY females... that is to say, people whose body followed a normal "male" phenotype even though they're genetically XX, and people whose body is "female" even though they're genetically XY. Then you have syndromes like androgen insensitivity syndrome, or hyperproduction of androgens, which can cause an otherwise normal body to develop "incorrectly". Then you have the wide gamut of intersex conditions that occur even in people who are not genetically "abnormal". Simply put, sex is not a binary, even at a genetic level.

What determines outward sexual appearance during fetal development is hormones, not genetics. The hormones are usually a response to certain genetic triggers, but not always. Sometimes the "wrong" hormones trigger, and sometimes they don't trigger at all. When a person undergoes sex reassignment, their hormones are replaced years before they undergo any surgery (and they may not have any surgery at all). The body develops secondary sex characteristics of their preferred sex... if it was strictly a genetic question as you seem to think, that wouldn't be possible. People born female would never grow a beard as they transition, and people born male would never grow breasts. And yet they do. Their bodies undergo other changes as well, as the hormones are replaced... skin changes texture/appearance, body hair changes distribution and texture, pubic hair grows in a different pattern, the eyes change structure, so does the brain... really, shouldn't hormones be the determining factor, if you're going to make that argument... oh wait... hormones are too easy to change, so I guess that wouldn't work with your bigotry.

You're also mixing "sex" with "gender". Gender is psychology, sex is physiology. If you're going to make an argument based on physiology, use the right fucking word.

Re:Faggotry

[codewarren]

Yeah, it's like those companies that hired those black people, trying to make life easier for their employees by campaigning against racism. Stupid evil companies, trying to get rid of all that great benevolent bigotry we've fought so hard for.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what being natural has to do with a man-made institution like marriage, but homosexuality is indeed natural: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_animals

Also, the difference between homosexuals marrying and children marrying is consent. The same goes for marrying animals as that is another argument that is often brought up by homophobic people like yourself in this kind of debate.

Bad idea

[nurb432]

Corporations should stick to their core mandate, and not get into 'social engineering'.

Be it a 'worthy' cause or not, its not their place to stick their noses into it and 'pick sides'.

Re:Bad idea

[codewarren]

Yeah, I get so tired of companies who try to stick up for the rights of their employees. Damn them. Why can't they all just exploit their employees to the max like everyone else.

Re:Bad idea

[Jafafa Hots]

So do you support a ban on all corporate campaign contributions?

Re:Bad idea

[TheGratefulNet]

they do and google does.

corporations have no soul, no ethics, no 'feelings'.

google should just fix its own social issues and stop the damned preaching. a corporation showing 'feelings' (no, this is not a pink floyd song) is not cute, its not warming. its simply looking after its own interests.

google, like apple, wants to appear progressive. this is one current way corps do this; is to champion some ideals that their customers (or even employees) can identify with.

but make no mistake, google has no feelings or heart or soul. none of the megacorps do. this is done to better themselves, in the long run.

in short, its just an ad. like most of what google is. its an ad. it tries to buy your loyalty and emotion.

Re:Bad idea

[hawguy]

But their is a difference between says all couples of any gender pairing in our emply gets benefits and campaigning to make it so everywhere.

There's a good business case to do so. If company A tries to do the right thing by granting benefits to domestic partners of all employees regardless of gender, but they compete against companies that do not do so because there's no legal requirement, then company A is at a competitive disadvantage. They could reduce benefits for their employees, or they could lobby to level the playing field for what they think is "right".

Companies lobby for lots of things that benefit themselves (tax exemptions, lax environmental laws, etc), so what's the problem with companies lobbying for something that they think is the right thing for their employees?

Re:Bad idea

[nurb432]

Yes.

Re:Bad idea

[sqrt(2)]

Why can't they all just exploit their employees to the max like everyone else.

You've touched on something profound there. For a libertarian-minded person to see a corporation taking an active stance on a civil rights issue is absolutely jarring to their world view. Corporations are supposed to be entirely rational actors that care only about the profit motive and always work to maximize efficiency and revenue. Alienating people by taking a controversial stance on an issue that doesn't even have anything to do with their business is, to them, insane. They don't know how to handle it.

They expect businesses to act just like you said, and it's shocking when they sometimes don't because it means maybe their simplistic view of human nature, that we are all ultimately motivated only be selfish self-interest, could be wrong. It also means the opposite thing could happen. Google or some other company could start advocating *against* individual liberties, civil rights, etc, just for the hell of it. Some people just want to watch the world burn. If they're already wealthy and powerful, capitalism has no inbuilt mechanism to stop them. But some people also want to watch the world prosper and see humanity thrive, and they don't care if they lose money making that happen.

What a complex creature man is. It makes the libertarians' heads spin!

Re:Bad idea

[Archangel Michael]

But but but, this is for LIBERAL cause, we only meant that Corporations aren't people when it is for Republican Causes. We like one, we don't like the other. No, we aren't hypocrites. / sarcasm

Sounds fair

[lennier1]

Why shouldn't gays have the right to live in misery like the rest of us?

Why not get government out of marriage?

[trout007]

As far as the government is concerned marriage should be treated like any other contract. They should have no say in the contents. If there is a breech take it to court and let a jury decide. Then purge out of law any benefits or tax considerations based on material status and just people as individuals.

Re:Why not get government out of marriage?

[M1FCJ]

I think you will find it's not the Governments against same-sex marriage but it's the religions and their institutions (churches, mosques, temples) and they should not stick their noses into other people's personal lives. Also the amount of the power Catholic and other churches hold over governments is terrifying. Let me know when America gets an openly Atheist president.

Don't be evil

[LourensV]

I'll be the last to say that Google can do nothing wrong (and avoid using their services as much as I can for privacy reasons), but it's things like this that in my eyes put them a step above their competition ethically. Do we see Facebook do this? Microsoft? Apple? Same thing with withdrawing from China rather than censoring on behalf of their government, and a bunch of other examples.

Corporations aren't people, but as Google demonstrates, they can occasionally show their human face.

Re:Don't be evil

[Dak RIT]

Did you notice the first link in the post (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/08/us/texas-county-retreats-over-apple-s-gay-policy.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)? It was Apple sticking up for its gay employees back in 1993.

Apple also recently elevated a talented, gay employee to the most powerful position in the entire company. Tim Cook is probably the most powerful gay man in the entire world.

Re:Don't be evil

[robbo]

Microsoft was offering same-sex benefits when GOOG was still a gleam in Sergey and Larry's eyes.

http://www.microsoft.com/about/diversity/en/us/programs/ergen/gleam.aspx

Making a road-show of it can be a double-edged sword and though I thinks it's great GOOG is having this experiment it can sometimes backfire. There's the whole problem with imposting 'western' values on the rest of the world and how that can erode positive inroads. Prime directive and all that.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[NiceGeek]

Wow only two comments in and some idiot managed to compare a consensual relationship between adults to pedophilia. Next up, some ignoramus saying "but what if a guy wants to marry his Great Dane?"
 

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[wisnoskij]

OK, I am not promoting the original commenter view, but then how about 3 or more mature adults who love each other?
Why do corporations and governments have any say in who we love, live with, and raise together?
The whole gay marriage issue seems like such a tiny specific issue to have a problem with.
And the how they always bring love into it, always bugs me. Love has nothing to do with legal marriage or what homosexuals want. Homosexuals, in general, want one thing to legalise marriage and gay sex. They do not want to legalise pedo-love, bestiality, or polygamy.

Re:Supporting employees with dissenting views

[NiceGeek]

So Google shouldn't hire black people because it might offend a racist?

Re:I'll be impressed when...

[interkin3tic]

From TFA:

The campaign will focus on countries like Singapore, where certain homosexual activities are illegal, and Poland, which has no legal recognition of same-sex couples.

It sounds like they're doing things wisely and focusing on countries in which the politics are not so turbulent and are not dominated by religious extremists. Poland and Singapore could probably be swayed. Egypt and Afghanistan obviously have bigger issues to contend with, and Afghanistan, that would be pissing money and effort away.

So I'm impressed that they seem to be taking a pragmatic approach and focusing on what they can actually do, rather than slamming their head against the biggest, sturdiest walls.

True equality

[davide marney]

I'm fine with Google being free to promote homosexuality as long as I am free to disagree with them and promote heterosexuality. Vive la difference!

Re:True equality

[NiceGeek]

Why does the majority need to be promoted?

Re:True equality

[NiceGeek]

Funny, I don't see gays wanting *more* rights than heterosexuals. Just *equal* rights.

Re:True equality

[MightyMartian]

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

adults living together

[mister_playboy]

polygamy

Just wanted to say that... if wages are as stagnant for the next 40 years as they have been for the last 40, then having more than 2 adults living together may become a necessity if you wish to have a household with children.

A variant of this has already happened with so many of the under-30 crowd being out of work and having to live with their parents.

Re:adults living together

[rasmusbr]

As a somewhat liberal-minded person, I can't think of a reason why you or I would have any reason whatsoever to demand that other people explain to us why they want to enter into a mutual agreement. I know that the government marries some people. I know that some people want to marry some other people who happen to be same sex. That's all I need to know to be for gay marriage.

But since you bring it up. Gay people need marriage in order to get the same rights and benefits as straight people get when they marry. You could write a law that would allow gay people to have civil unions that would give them the same rights, but AFAIK there's no way to ensure that it stays that way over time as the laws change. Also, if one minority should have to settle for civil unions, why not another minority? For example why should Scientologists be allowed to marry? Can you prove that Scientologists are as good as non-Scientologists at parenting?

When you say that marriage is for a man and a woman you're merely making a fact claim, one that is true in some places and not true in other places. Don't confuse what is with what you think ought to be!

Re:adults living together

[type40]

Right, because all gay men are effeminate little queens that swish around their fashionable homes before going to work at the beauty salon.
There are no gay fighter pilots after all. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081206128.html

A: Almost every reputable study conducted has shown that gay parents raise kids that are no more fucked up that straight parents.

B: As a gay men, I have a feeling that if you and I had our selves a "Man Off" you'd come out the bitch in the end.

Re:adults living together

[MightyMartian]

Translation: Science did not confirm my biases, therefore science is wrong.

Polygamy

[downhole]

I generally support gay rights, but I've always been a little meh on the idea of gay marriage. What I'd really like to hear is for a gay marriage advocate to explain to me why polygamy should be illegal yet gay marriage should be legal. If we should let two guys or two girls get married because they really love each other and want to be together forever and all of that, then why shouldn't we let a guy marry two or three or more girls (or whatever other combination you can think of) if they all really love each other and want to be together in that way? It isn't something completely absurd like marrying dogs or cars or something - there have been and still are many societies where polygamy is normal and accepted and widely practiced. So why not?

Re:Polygamy

[Asmor]

Polygamy should be legal, for all the reasons you suggest. As long as all the participants are of sound mind and everything's consensual, who has any right to tell people they can't engage in polygamy?

The government shouldn't have any say in this sort of thing whatsoever.

Re:Polygamy

[heehau]

The main difference is in the language of marriage laws. Two consenting, non-related adults etc. etc. can get married IFF they are not of the same sex. The institution of marriage LEGALLY remains the same if the exclusion is removed, since that exclusion serves no functional purpose in the legal framework of marriage. To the law, a same-sex couple is the same as a different-sex couple that can't produce offspring (with each other).

If society decides to evolve towards polygamy, it certainly can do so, but laws and the judicial system have to changed in a much more fundamental way. The concept of divorce needs to be amended (who leaves whom? is the whole marriage severed when one of the spouses leaves? if not, who gets what?). We have to decide how biological and legal constructs matter (if X is child of A and B, who are married to each other and to C, how is the relationship between X and A different from that between X and C?).

None of those changes are too difficult to figure out, I suppose, but they are an obstacle that same-sex marriage doesn't have.

Re:Polygamy

[akeeneye]

Likewise, what I'd like to hear is for a hetero marriage advocate to explain why gay marriage should be illegal yet hetero marriage should be legal. "Tradition" doesn't cut it any more than "we've always done things this way" is a valid argument in other contexts. "Only a man and a woman can reproduce" is a worthless argument because they can reproduce outside of marriage too. If gays need to prove that they're entitled to legal recognition (rights, marriage) then heteros need to prove the same thing.

Re:Polygamy

[couchslug]

"What I'd really like to hear is for a gay marriage advocate to explain to me why polygamy should be illegal yet gay marriage should be legal."

Why would they? As you point out, polygamy has worked in many societies and the only objections to it are RELIGIOUS.

There is no logical secular objection to polygamy or polyandry or "poly-cluster" sexual unions. Where existing contracts don't cover the bases, add riders to the base marriage contract and have at it!

Re:Polygamy

[mibus]

What I'd really like to hear is for a gay marriage advocate to explain to me why polygamy should be illegal yet gay marriage should be legal.

Why does it matter if polygamy is legal? That's a different discussion that everyone will have different opinions on, and can be dealt with without entwining it with same-sex marriage. Let each be debated on its own merits.

Re:Polygamy

[10101001 10101001]

There is no logical secular objection to polygamy or polyandry or "poly-cluster" sexual unions.

Actually, there's two major logical secular objections to poly* marriages. Objection one is that it creates a warped situation where more generally affluent individuals can marry many spouses simultaneously which causes an imbalance in pairing availability for other, less wealthy individuals; this, btw, also holds to the point of encouraging more disparate marriage ages, as obviously an older person has more opportunity to have acquired wealth. Objection two is that current marital disputes are already severely complicated, which is a major reason things like bastard children not being able to inherent were established as a matter of common law.

Where existing contracts don't cover the bases, add riders to the base marriage contract and have at it!

Yeah, good luck with that. So if person A is already married to person B, does person A need person B's permission to marry person C? What happens when there's ambiguous language like "the first heir shale inherit" and person B brings into the marriage a child? What happens if person B agrees to person A's marriage to C but then later decides to effectively void person A and C's marriage by unconsenting to it? If person B dies, does B's child have any say in person A's and person C's marriage either pre marriage or post marriage?

I mean, a lot of the above in one form or another is already an issue in any case and the actual statue of the state tends to resolve questions, but it still takes a judge to mediate the dispute. But once you start including potential multiple contracts coupled with various state statues, potentially multiple in effect, it gets incredibly messy. Removing any state involvement and degenerating it down to just contracts has a lot of risk of incredibly legalistic marriage contracts that no party is fully able to comprehend and for which there is almost certainly going to be enough ambiguity to never really satisfy anyone involved.

In short, I'd say the potential problems of such marriages are n! for n people involved.

Re:Polygamy

[FrootLoops]

I've been reading the book Debating Same-Sex Marriage (endorsed by both Rick Santorum and Dan Savage, who gave Santorum its... other... meaning). The pro-same-sex marriage advocate, John Corvino, in this case is in the minority--he doesn't necessarily believe polygamy should be allowed. He explains why in section 4 of his opening essay:

In other words, [the argument goes] the pro-gay position logically entails the pro-[polygamy/incest/bestiality] position. Why would anyone think this? The answer, I suspect, is that opponents misread the pro-gay position as claiming that "People should be able to marry anyone they love." ... But I know of no one in the marriage-equality movement who really accepts this premise, despite pithy bumper-sticker slogans suggesting otherwise. It's a straw man.

Does my position logically commit me to accepting polygamy as well? I don't think so. ... After examining most of the major arguments, we have yet to see any serious costs from extending marriage to same-sex couples. By contrast, we have thousands of years of human history demonstrating the typical costs of polygamy. Polygamy tends almost always to be polygyny, where one man has multiple wives. (By contrast, polyandry--one wife with multiple husbands--is quite rare.) The usual result is a sexist and classist society where high-status males acquire multiple wives while lower-status males become virtually unmarriageable. in that sense, examined from the social-policy point of view, polygamy actually undermines our "mutual-lifelong-caregiving" goal: if we want to ensure that as many people as possible form stable family units, we should be wary of allowing any one individual to take multiple spouses.

I've clipped some of his discussion for brevity, but his overarching point is that there is ample evidence (which he briefly presents) that allowing same-sex couples to marry is not harmful and is even beneficial, while there is also ample evidence that polygamy is harmful, so same-sex marriage should be allowed and polygamy shouldn't. It should be noted though that he also says,

I've expressed this point before, which usually elicits a "Gotcha!" response from my critics: "Ahah! So you're saying that if polygamy actually promoted individual well-being and community flourishing, you wouldn't oppose it?" Yes--that is precisely what I'm saying.

(I'm having trouble getting through Maggie Gallagher's half of the book, but so far their biggest disagreement is typified by the above. Corvino uses effects-based, what-will-this-do-to-society arguments, and Gallagher uses abstract definition-based arguments. I suspect Corvino won the debate, though again I haven't finished it yet.)

Re:Polygamy

[danlip]

There is a very fundamental logistical difference between 2 and 3, particularly when you consider who gets to make medical decisions for a spouse that is unable to speak for themselves, or custody issues, or dividing assets in a divorce. 3 makes things much harder than 2. This is solvable with very detailed marriage contracts (something that would not be a bad idea even for 2 person marriages). That being said, I think polygamy should be allowed, but gay marriage is clearly a much bigger and more important civil rights issue right now and does not introduce the logistical problems that polygamy would.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[codewarren]

Google isn't saying we need marriage for gays, exactly, they are saying that we need equal treatment. If the government is giving preferential treatment to heterosexuals and denying it to everyone else, then that's wrong.

So then the question of whether or not "marriage" should be a legally recognized thing at all is another question. It may or may not be. But, consider that if children also need protection from government, then it actually could be in a government's interest to control the environment they're raised in to some extent.

Re:Marriage =/= legal union.

[Sique]

Marriage is a religious rite [...]

This is not true for instance in Germany and many other european countries. There marriage is a legal procedure, performed by a municipal clerk. You can only go to your church, synagoge, mosque or whatever the sacred place is called in your religion to celebrate your marriage if you can show the official document sealing your marriage. Also the legal implications coming with marriage require the official procedure and the accompagnying paperwork.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

"but what if a guy wants to marry his Great Dane?"

He'd have to train the Great Dane to say "I do" first.

If you can manage that feat, then it would ok.

Why not let government handle marriage?

[houghi]

So if people who are getting married, they get married by the government. If they want to undergo a ritual somewhere else, like in a church, that can be done separately.

That is how it is done in at least Belgium and Germany and probably other countries as well.

It should then be extremely easy to allow same sex marriage as government should not discriminate on gender.

Just get marriage off the books entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

There is *no* reason that "marriage" needs to be defined in law at all.
Just let people love and live however they see fit. If:
- two men
- two women
- a man and 5 women
- a woman and 3 guys
- a group of people
- or any other combination
choose to live together, so be it. Who is anyone to say how someone else can love and choose to live with one or more other people?

Let religions define marriage each in their own way, if they want to--but preserve the separation of church and state.
Let everyone regardless of religion, live with whomever they want.
There is *no* reason to have to declare your relationships to the state. Seems very silly to do so, and is really just another form of tax:
- marriage license
- marriage certificate
- lawyers bills
- divorce filing
- divorce decree
- alimony
(note I don't include child support in this list--a separate matter entirely)

Why bother with all that. Just cohabitate. Stay together happily, or split up and go separate ways. Don't bother filing and updating your status with the government each time your life changes. It's none of their business.

Re:Will homophobes and rednecks now flock to Bing?

[CdBee]

Microsoft have been targeted by right wing faith- (hate-) groups for their pro-gay-rights positions so I assume you're right.
I vaguely recall the company being asked (by same hate groups) to dismiss a prominent equality rights activist and flatly refusing, choosing instead to endorse his positions.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[AK Marc]

They do not want to legalise pedo-love, bestiality, or polygamy.

Marriage confers rights that the state blocks from others. The issue isn't who can get married, but why the right to be "next of kin" is banned from private contracts, and only allowed in contracts "blessed" but the state. beastiality isn't marriage. That's like saying you should be able to marry your hand. Or poligimatically marry both hands. You hand can't consent, and can't own land, so the right of "next of kin" is denied to it already. Same as animals. You can form a trust to hold land on behalf of your favorite cat, but the cat can't own land. It's not about marying whoever you want. It's a rights issue about why some people can't enter into a legal contract with others on the same framework as other people.

That, and Congress has written a law explicitly contradicting the Constitution. The Defense of Marriage Act contradicts the "full faith and credit" clause. State A marries two gays, then they are married in all 50 states, as per the Constitution. Why Congress would pass an unconstitutional law explicitly against gay marriage, then take it upon themselves to champion the cause is beyond me. Just go back to Constitutional law. Let one state recognize it (say, New Hampshire) and then the gays can go there to get married, and then that "contract" will be recognized in the other 49. Problem solved. You can live in a place that doesn't recognize gay marriage, but still follows the Constitution, right?

Re:Marriage =/= legal union.

[sumdumass]

I do not think it matters as marriage has typically been of religious control. The state got involved because many were being excluded from marriage and it was more or less a power struggle between the ruling powers and religious authorities. Eventually, marriage carried legal ramifications when widowers rights, automatic transfer of ownerships and other legal benefits started being assigned automatically because of marital status.

In the debate on gay marriage, if those assigned legal rights were to be removed and separated- say applied for and consented to separately, the gay marriage debate would likely disappear. The big problem is mostly the mixing of religious born rituals with legal procedures.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[ganjadude]

i got no problem with gay people whatso ever, but I think google should stick to gooogle things, and not political things.

Re:Marriage =/= legal union.

[pe1rxq]

No problem with that.. but only if would stop recognizing marriage at all.
Scrap it from law all together. That way we would still end up with equallity for all.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[ganjadude]

one could argue everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no preferential treatment. But when we have the "gay olympics" or the "gay this" or "gay that" it is actually more exclusionary than one would think. People make the argument that so and so was persecuted and whatever for xx years in the past, but it isnt the past. One cant argue for equal treatment, and still seek preferential treatment. Example, If a straight man hits a gay man, he can be charged with a hate crime, when a gay man atackes a straight man, he must have provoked it. where is the equality?

I am sure I will burn off some karma with this post, but I honestly believe that equality is there, but as long as communities continue to differentiate and not assimilate, than it is only preferential treatment that is being sought after.

Re:Marriage =/= legal union.

[Lemmy Caution]

Again, no, it isn't. Monogamous marriages were a secular Roman practice (most societies before that were polygamous.) The Catholic church may have interpreted some scripture to turn a civil practice into a sacrament, but the civil practice preceded it historically and structurally.

The etymology of "marriage" is from the Latin "maritare."

Re:Faggotry

[iamhassi]

Google should not be meddling with this. What happened to 'not be evil' This reeks of evil.

i don't think this is "evil", but i agree, google doesn't really need to be advertising one way or the other. Offering it to employees in same sex relationships is up to them, but to advertise? That's pushing it too far. What's next, abortion? I don't like seeing companies get political

every country has issues

[circletimessquare]

every country can improve

by your logic, no one can ever criticize any other country in the world outside of their own, because their own country still has problems and always will

fucking bullshit

i can criticize any country i want, including my own, and it's not hypocrisy. because i am first and foremost a human being, concerned with human rights, and with a human conscience. nationalist silos may confine your thinking, but not mine

don't think the parameters of your own self-chosen provincialism has any bearing on me

Re:Marriage =/= legal union.

[couchslug]

You obviously aren't from the US. Legal marriage and religious marriage are quite different.

Legal marriage requires a marriage license and is a binding legal contract.

Superstitious marriage is whatever the superstitionists say it is.

Re:Faggotry

[sumdumass]

I don't know about the hate, but I will say that this is a divisive area and will create disdain with a portion of their user base. The country is about half split on the issue with alternatives to google popping up all the time.

This is a corporation getting involved in politics which seems to be the greatest evil that most people can agree on over the last 30 or more years. Of course some people will be shallow enough to excuse their favorite company getting into politics that do not directly involve their operation because it is something they want to support, but it doesn't change anything.

I guess the next question might be, what if Microsoft and GM decided to advocate the pro life argument and IBM all the sudden threw in support for teaching creation in schools. I'm assuming there would be differences in how that is viewed but in reality it is no different. These are just places that no corporation should be involved in- especially if they claim to do no evil which they are clearly participating in.

Re:sickening.

[couchslug]

Perhaps according to your Superstition, but your Imaginary Friend carries less and less weight every year.

Your post is an example of why ALL Superstition is toxic and unworthy of modern man.

Prove your Sky Fairie exists, NOW, and I'll recant and kiss his/her/its Noodly Appendage. Otherwise, fuck off.

To espouse Superstition is to espouse spiritual slavery. That makes all Superstionists enemies of humanity, and is why any of their protests otherwise should be considered delusions or deliberate lies.

Re:Faggotry

[Nerdfest]

If companies publicly show support for certain things, I can avoid them. If they quietly throw millions of dollars at those causes, I won't know that I should.

Re:Marriage =/= legal union.

[jpate]

I disagree with you that the concept of marriage is religious, but anyway there are religious beliefs and communities that are completely fine with same sex marraige. By the establishment clause, the federal government can't favor those religious traditions, beliefs, or communities which do not approve of same-sex marriage over those that do. Religious freedom is an argument for legal recognition of same-sex marriage, not against it. You could appeal to religious freedom to avoid being forced to carry out the ceremony yourself or recognizing same-sex marriages in your own religious institution, but not to force somebody else to follow your rules.

I don't see why you're modded troll

[F69631]

Marriage is both social and legal construct. In most areas gay marriage can be legalized by simply changing the words man, husband, wife and woman to person and that's more or less it. However, changing the marriage to a construct between 2...n people, we need to totally rethink many concepts such as divorce (does it break the whole group or can just one person leave? Also, can a new person later on just "join" existing marriage?) and widowhood. If a man and two women are married and the man dies, are the two women now considered widows and are they now gay married to each other? What if one of the women died instead, are the man and other woman now considered widows? Issues like this matter because many laws are built on them.

It makes sense to fix gay marriage first, because that's so quick and easy, compared to legalizing polygamy in marriages.

Re:Marriage =/= legal union.

[Kjella]

Here in Norway you can go to a municipal clerk, but churches, mosques and other organizations like humanitarians can get a "license to marry" if they do their paperwork. So the priest is the one actually marrying you both in the legal and religious sense, but the paperwork will be exactly the same. Unlike the municipal clerk they are not required to marry anyone though, so they can have their own rules on who they'll marry and not. I think those two varieties cover pretty much all of Europe, it's a legal procedure in some way not just a marriage contract.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[couchslug]

I support Freedom, and support the Support of Freedom wherever it comes from.

Google fights a good fight here.

Re:One Nation Under God.

[geminidomino]

The biggest benefit of going to hell: Assholes like you will apparently all be in heaven.

Plus, the music is way better.

Re:Marriage =/= legal union.

[Empiric]

Yes, I've never understood the conflation by the "Religious Right" of "marriage" in a secular sense versus "marriage" in a religious sense. Their stance equating the two seems to imply either a) God can be "forced" to recognize gay marriage in a -religious- sense by a vote of politicians, or b) the validity of marriage in a religious sense (and God per se, to some extent) is contingent upon public agreement.

Neither of which seems to be a stance a theist would actually want to take. Seems much more reasonable to leave the secular and religious scope of "marriage" to the sphere at hand, and not doing so seems much more indicative of political gamesmanship than dedication to one's religion.

As an aside, it's actually quite debatable whether the primary reason for censure of "gay sex" (not "homosexuality", as gay -orientation- in itself has not a single censure anywhere in the bible), is because it is homosexual, or whether it is because by definition as of the historical context, it would be unmarried, promiscuous sex, which is equally condemned for heterosexuals. But that, again, would be a debate for the religious sense of "marriage", and distinct from secular issues...

Re:Faggotry

[boneglorious]

In my state, they tried to make it illegal for companies to offer domestic partner benefits. While this would have affected all unmarried couples, it was targeted at gays. The biggest employers in the state came out against it, because they know they can't attract the best employees if they can't offer those types of benefits that are attractive to employees. The same is true of a good city to live in: these companies know that by making their locations more attractive, they will get better employees. Google is trying to make their locations more attractive, and who can blame them? It's business, plain and simple, and in my opinion it's a nice example that shows that the interests of companies and individuals can indeed be aligned, though they often are not.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[purpledinoz]

Can someone explain to me what's the big deal with gay marriage? What's the hang up against letting two people marry? Who cares, it doesn't affect you. What's the harm in letting two guys or girls marry? There are more important things to be angry about, like the banks defrauding taxpayers out of billions.

Re:Marriage =/= legal union.

[bondsbw]

I'm a proponent for civil unions as a replacement for the legal institute of marriage. It is as simple as changing the name, but returns the term "marriage" to organized religion.

After all, the term "gay civil union" is much easier for the public to digest than "gay marriage". It would be functionally the same, but would be written into law much faster.

Re:Marriage =/= legal union.

[UnknowingFool]

The concept of marriage is not strictly religious. Many cultures have had marriage but not necessarily tied to any religion. Buddhism for example considers marriage a matter for the state and not the religion. Those who are opposing gay marriage want to thrust their religious beliefs into the definition. Predominantly the religion they want to define marriage is a Protestant Christian one. Marriage existed in some form long before Christianity. As an legal institution, marriage has been used to convey inheritance and transfer of property. Women were the property being transferred and children born in wedlock were considered true heirs to any wealth whereas other children were not.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[PopeRatzo]

Why do corporations and governments have any say in who we love, live with, and raise together?

They don't. You are free to love, live with and raise together (sic) anyone you wish. Government provides benefits to married couples because households comprised of people in committed relationships contribute to social and economic stability. Personally, I don't believe it matters whether those relationships are between members of the opposite sex or not - they still contribute to social and economic stability.

On the other hand, outside of strict religious contexts, I don't believe that marital units comprised of more than 2 adults has the same effect of promoting stability. It's why you mainly see polygamy in strict religious cultures. Outside of strict religious cultures, you don't see polygamy working so well, for some reason.

Pair bonding of same-sex couples occurs in nature, as does, of course, pair bonding of opposite sex couples. I don't know if polygamous sexual bonding occurs in nature or not.

Pair bonding is good for society, regardless of the respective genders of the couple. It's healthy that society promotes it. As far as I can tell there are only two reasons to oppose same-sex marriage: on religious grounds or because of homophobia, and neither should enter into the law. Nobody's going to force anyone to engage in gay sex (Penn State locker rooms and rectories notwithstanding). I have yet to hear a legitimate reason for opposing same-sex marriage.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[GameboyRMH]

A lot of people are crypto-theocrats of religions where homosexuality is a sin (mostly variants of Christianity), but most won't openly admit that they wish to force their religious rules on others, so they make up all the pretzel-logic bullshit reasons that confuse us today.

That's the whole thing in a nutshell. Get enough of those crypto-theocrats in a room together and they'll drop the facade and talk about how they want their government to follow Biblical rules and how it would be a sin to support same-sex marriage.

Re:Faggotry

[AK Marc]

I'd be fine with that as soon as demographic information on gender is officially determined in the same manner as racial demographic information. The official federal standard for race is, you are what you claim to be. But gender is not so defined. let gender be determined the same way, and it fixes all those problems, except for sports, it'd really screw up sports. It's already that way for transexuals, so long as nobody objects. A pre-op male is often allowed to go into the women's restrooms, though they'd also be allowed in the mens, if they so chose. Though last I heard, there are still places where a pre-op is not allowed in women's rooms.

Two men or two women marrying each other is extra to those rights and it's something they want to be included because of choices they made in their life and perceived benefits extended through law.

Two people is two people. It's the bigots who want to make sure that the pairings match their preconceptions. That bigotry has persisted long enough to be though of as "natural" doesn't make the bigotry the default position, just the intermediate position of familiarity and comfort for the bigots.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[CSMoran]

I don't know if polygamous sexual bonding occurs in nature or not.

Let me introduce you to gorillas :).

Re:Faggotry

[Belial6]

In our language, 'equal rights' means 'the same rights'. 'Equal but different' was deemed 'not equal rights'. Banning same sex marriage is like the old segregated water fountains. Saying, "Anyone can drink from a water fountain that is listed for use by their race is equal rights.", and "Blacks wanting to drink from white water fountains is asking for extra rights." is absurd. The same applies to marriage. Even if Joe is willing, Mike cannot marry Joe. Sharron can marry Joe. That is not equal.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[Tancred]

one could argue everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no preferential treatment.

And if you were only allowed to marry someone of the same sex, would you consider that preferential treatment?

Example, If a straight man hits a gay man, he can be charged with a hate crime, when a gay man atackes a straight man, he must have provoked it. where is the equality?

That's not how it works. If a straight man seeks out a gay man to threaten, assault or kill, that's a hate crime. The "must have provoked it" sounds like something you just made up.

As I understand it, hate crime legislation has two parts - harsher sentences and federal involvement. The reason for harsher sentences is that the attack is on a group, not just the individual. Picking a random gay person to beat up, or burning a cross on a lawn or lynching someone is terrorism against a group. Federal involvement is sometimes needed because local police and legal systems don't protect the rights of those protected classes.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[Cogneato]

Google made it clear that these sorts of laws affect its ability to keep the best talent in their company. Also, in the legal sense, being able to apply the term "married" to two people shortcuts a lot of overhead for establishing employee benefits. It defines a legal contract between the two people which does not need to be reviewed in extreme detail by the HR department. Without it, each couple could have entirely different sets of contracts that define their relationship. This could lead to two things: 1) very lenient interpretations of who can get benefits, leaving a lot of room for abuse by fake life-partners; or 2) the need for costly legal fees to determine which side of the line each contract falls.

The result of all of this is that Google's bottom line is negatively affected by laws created by religious zealots, and making money, like with any other corporation, is a Google thing.

Re:Faggotry

[craigminah]

I didn't see any hate in kubusja's post...you probably see hate because you disagree. I think Google should focus on the business and not in politics. Curious what their stock holders think about the wasted man-hours and money Google's invested in this already.

Re:Google isn't an arm of the US Govt.

[Teun]

Poland has a much smaller population than California.

California 37.7 million. (2012)
Poland 38.4 million. (2011)

Re:Marriage =/= legal union.

[f3rret]

The concept of marriage is religious.

Nope, for the longest period of time marriage was a practical or political arrangement, it was a way to ensure the continuation of your linage. It had more to do with the political aspects of medieval life than it had to do with the religious aspects of it.

It served as a handy way to not only ensure children but also cement political alliances and inheritance.

The church's role in the whole deal was simply that it was the only organization that could perform the marriages, which is how the church maintained its base of power in medieval Europe. In many cases the medieval catholic church was a political organization more than a religious one.

Re:Marriage =/= legal union.

[Asic Eng]

returns the term "marriage" to organized religion.

It doesn't belong to them.

Re:Marriage =/= legal union.

[riverat1]

I think marriage is a natural development of the human tendency to pair bond. That religions incorporated it into their theology is not surprising.

Why do we still care about religious opinion?

[infidel_heathen]

Why are we still care about the opinions of 2000 year old texts that were so obviously made up by a bunch of iron age goat herders? Why don't we make our laws according to rationality, according to the evolved morals of our modern times, not according to the morals of a bunch of so called "holy books" that openly promote slavery, misogyny, and genocide? Why don't we accept equality for all?

Re:Marriage =/= legal union.

[Chuck Chunder]

It is as simple as changing the name

I think this shows that you are thinking of it as an abstract concept rather than something that people will actually live and use.

If not what do you imagine people will say instead of "They got married on the weekend" or "Is he married?".

"They got civilly unified on the weekend".
"Is he in a civil union?"

Not in a million years is a real person going to say such a thing. In reality people will just keep use the perfectly good word we already have for the scenario, ie some derivative of "married".

It might seem like a reasonable sop to offer to the "definitionist" crowd but in reality it's an entirely illusory one (and as such a dishonest one).

You might argue that a distinction in law is different than a distinction in common speech but I'd argue that as a social construct it would make no sense (and in fact be harmful) for it to be called something different in law.

Re:Why does it have to be "marriage"?

[Psyborgue]

Because existing laws are written with the word "marriage". It's much easier to legalize marriage than do a find/replace on the entire of the law.

Re:Google isn't an arm of the US Govt.

[Sqr(twg)]

Poland has a much smaller population than California.

California 37.7 million. (2012)

Poland 38.4 million. (2011)

California: 87 kg (191 lbs)
Poland: 76 kg (168 lbs)

FTFY

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[thesandtiger]

There is literally nothing in your post that is correct.

Literally every "gay" event I have ever heard of has been more than happy to have straight people there; the term "gay" is often used to say its a safe space, not that it is exclusionary. Do you really think that straight people who are behaving themselves (not being hateful assholes) are being asked to leave or barred from entry? Contrast that with many groups that emphatically will refuse to have gay folk there and will remove them if they're outed. I have literally never heard of someone being removed from a "gay" event for being straight, but even if such things do happen, it's vastly more likely to be the other way around, with gay folk being excluded.

And as for hate crimes, you are ignorant and wrong on that as well. "Gay" is not the protected class, but sexual orientation is. This means that if a black, Muslim lesbian in a wheelchair were to scream "die, breeder, Christian, white man!" while attacking a straight white able-bodied Christian male, she would absolutely be able to be charged with a hate crime.

It isn't the risk of burning off karma you should be worried about, but the fact that you have just demonstrated yourself to be completely ignorant of how the things you are so bothered by actually work. I suggest you take some time to educate yourself rather than remain ignorant and angry.

Re:Why does it have to be "marriage"?

[thesandtiger]

I have 2 questions for you:

1) why do you put protecting a word above the freedoms of other people? You said gay marriage would debase the word marriage - why is that somehow more important than the freedoms of others?

2) why aren't you advocating for an abolition of divorce since surely that debases marriage more than allowing other people into that special club. Or advocating stricter laws for dealing with adulterers, since surely that, too, debases marriage.

And actually, a third question:

3) debase? Really? Is your own marriage so pathetic a sham that people you don't know using the word to describe their own relationship going to make yours worth less? When you introduce people to your spouse are you worried they will think you're both men or both women? Seriously, it's just fucking dumb.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots?

[Kijori]

Michael Sandel in his Reith Lecture makes the point that if the objection to homosexual marriage really sprang from the standpoint usually claimed - that marriage is a Christian practice and that Christianity only supports marriage between a man and a woman - there would be a very simple solution: the state could get out of marriage entirely and offer only "civil unions"; marriage could then be a purely religious matter with no standing in law. That this solution is anathema to the vast majority of opponents of same-sex marriage betrays the real reason: state recognition confers a privileged status on people who marry. Opposition to same-sex marriage largely comes from people not wanting the state to acknowledge that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals.
Or to put it colloquially: they just don't like gays.

Re:Marriage =/= legal union.

[th3rmite]

Who does it belong to?