Google Opposes Anti-Gay Marriage Ban

(CNET)  Google has taken a public stand against Proposition 8, an anti-gay marriage measure on the November ballot in California.

Co-founder Sergey Brin, who made the announcement in a blog Friday afternoon, acknowledged that it is unusual for his company to take stands on issues outside the tech realm. The company "especially" avoids taking stands on social issues, he said, because of the diversity of its workforce.

However, Brin said, "it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8."

"We should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love," he said.

Brin did not mention whether Google will do anything else to oppose the measure, other than taking a stand.

The official site opposing the proposition includes a long list of backers. No companies are listed there. However, on Thursday, Levi Strauss & Co. and PG&E became co-chairs of the No On Prop 8 Equality Business Council. And in July, PG&E donated $250,000 to the campaign.

[Nothin_on_me]

OK people, this is insane. And by that, I mean Google is ****** up. Marriage is between a man and a women, or else it doesn't work. If you choose to be gay, and yes gay people I said CHOOSE, then you don't tell others OK either, especially Google for God's sake. C'mon people, look at the big picture, gay people are, for the most part, retarded democrats who have nothing better to do in life. Churches have no right to marry these people either, that's just wrong.

Note: I can see this coming from a mile away, if any of you gay bastards decides to report my comment, you have no right. This is both what I think and what the millions of other straights think too. So what if I never meet them, I at least have a LIFE THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE SEX UP SOMEONES ASS!

[kansas1946]

Church leaders who refuse to marry same-*** people will be required to or they can be sued.

Religious adoption agencies will have to choose whether to close their doors and cease the work they do, or be required to go against their beliefs.

These are just some of the downsides to changing the defenition of marriage.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by guysdigdirt at 08:16 PM : Oct 01, 2008
+******************************

None of the above is true, except possibly the adoption part. Churches refuse to marry people all of the time for a number of reasons. No one is suing them. As to the adoption concern, gay people are adopting now and will continue to do so. Some provision could be in place to protect religious groups if so need be.

[charlieot]

...In an ideal world it would not be, but there are those who want to prove they are acceptabble by using the courts to say a church is wrong in their beliefs.

Posted by guysdigdirt at 08:12 PM : Oct 01, 2008

...and there are those who use a church to say the courts are wrong in their rulings.
This doesn''t make either one right, it is just a fact that must be recognized (by all parties).

[charlieot]

Perhaps most importantly, it would convey the right of survivorship to those couples. This is a significant legal principle protecting a surviving partner in the event that the other partner dies intestate (without a will). This right is conferred automatically to legally joined couples and is possibly the most important measure of "equality" that one could conceive.

Probate code 4716 already does that.

Keep trying.
Posted by charlieot

Posted by guysdigdirt at 08:09 PM : Oct 01, 2008

from a legal perspective it would mean that same-*** couples would have all of the legal obligations and benefits that heterosexual couples have.
Posted by charlieot

There is no difference today so being married will change nothing legally.

You will have to do better than that.
Posted by guysdigdirt at 08:07 PM : Oct 01, 2008

To expand on my points...
I don''t claim to be an expert on Ca. legal codes, but today no such status exists at the Federal level. For all intents and purposes, the Federal level is the level that counts. California''s proposition only carries the weight that will be afforded by Federal codes.
This means that your position will be the nationally-recognized position for some time (how long, who knows). It also means that the California proposition carries limited weight and authority regardless of the outcome. I would see this proposition as more a vehicle to gauge public sentiment and perhaps provide impetus in one direction or the other.

[charlieot]

Again I will say, I have no problem with same-*** couples if they do not shove their lives down my throat and make me or my family change our beliefs to make them feel better.

By asking to include same-sexx couple in marriages they do just that...

Posted by guysdigdirt at 08:14 PM : Oct 01, 2008

By insisting that they be excluded, aren''t you doing exactly them same thing to them?

[guysdigdirt]

If marriage becomes, legally, a union of two people no matter the gender then there will be legal issues for those who do not believe it right for there to be same ***-marriage.

Church leaders who refuse to marry same-*** people will be required to or they can be sued.

Religious adoption agencies will have to choose whether to close their doors and cease the work they do, or be required to go against their beliefs.

These are just some of the downsides to changing the defenition of marriage.

[guysdigdirt]

Again I will say, I have no problem with same-*** couples if they do not shove their lives down my throat and make me or my family change our beliefs to make them feel better.

By asking to include same-sexx couple in marriages they do just that.

They have all the legal and other rights through domestic partnerships, why need marriage?

[guysdigdirt]

As to whether someone should be compelled to marry a couple in violation of their personal beliefs, I would extend that requirement only to government employees who are charged with that obligation as part of their normal duties. Churches are 1) private institutions and 2) are afforded specific protections that I personally believe are appropriate and would shield them (and their employees) from such a requirement.
Posted by charlieot

I approve your sentiment there but others do not agree and there have already been lawsuits and losses to church organizations for refusing to marrry a same sexx couple. In an ideal world it would not be, but there are those who want to prove they are acceptabble by using the courts to say a church is wrong in their beliefs.

[guysdigdirt]

Perhaps most importantly, it would convey the right of survivorship to those couples. This is a significant legal principle protecting a surviving partner in the event that the other partner dies intestate (without a will). This right is conferred automatically to legally joined couples and is possibly the most important measure of "equality" that one could conceive.

Probate code 4716 already does that.

Keep trying.
Posted by charlieot

[guysdigdirt]

from a legal perspective it would mean that same-*** couples would have all of the legal obligations and benefits that heterosexual couples have.
Posted by charlieot

There is no difference today so being married will change nothing legally.

You will have to do better than that.