Sept. 29, 2008
Google Opposes Anti-Gay Marriage Ban
In An Unusual Move For Tech Firm, Founder Says " Discriminatory Effect" On Employees Led To Statement
-
(AP)
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.
Copyright ©2008 CNET Networks, Inc., a CBS Company. All rights reserved.
More From CNET Tech News
Add a Comment See all 74 Comments
- 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. - Reply to this comment
- ...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). - Reply to this comment
- 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. - Reply to this comment
- 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? - Reply to this comment
- 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. - Reply to this comment
- 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? - Reply to this comment
- 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. - Reply to this comment
- 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 - Reply to this comment
- 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. - Reply to this comment
- I am not looking to change the definition of the word...that *will* happen over time or the word will cease to exist. It is a certainty that we will ascribe legal status to same-*** couples at some point. If that status is not defined as "marriage," it is almost equally certain that, over time, common usage for the term will come to include same-*** couples or that the term for legally-joined same-*** couples will eventually be expanded to include heterosexual couples. In either event, the word "marriage" will cease to be used as it is today.
Posted by charlieot
Currently same-*** couple in California have every right, through a domestic partnership, that straight couples have through marriage. But they want to be able to change the defenition of marriage to suit their own needs. The domestic partnership is just as legal as marrige, why the need to change marriage?
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. - Reply to this comment
- Just answer me this. Why do you need to be married? Will it make you normal? Will it make you better? Will it allow you the right to sue someone who will not perfomr your marriage due to their personal beliefs? Tell me why, please.
Posted by guysdigdirt at 07:01 PM : Oct 01, 2008
Part II
Why do I need to be married? Because I love my wife and children (I''m straight); I believe that ability is something that should be afforded to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.
Will same-*** marriage change those who marry, perhaps, perhaps not. Of greater concern to me is that by supporting it, I believe that I am making the world better for my children. In the event that any of my children or their children grow up to be g.a.y, I want to ensure that they have every legal advantage I have had.
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. - Reply to this comment
- I am not asking to change the definition of a word, you are. Marriage is one man and one woman. If I wanted to change the definition of ggay or lessbians to mean close minded, self-centered, haters of all who think differently than they do can I do that? Why should you change something just to suit your needs?
Posted by guysdigdirt at 07:01 PM : Oct 01, 2008
I will answer you in two parts...
I am not looking to change the definition of the word...that *will* happen over time or the word will cease to exist. It is a certainty that we will ascribe legal status to same-*** couples at some point. If that status is not defined as "marriage," it is almost equally certain that, over time, common usage for the term will come to include same-*** couples or that the term for legally-joined same-*** couples will eventually be expanded to include heterosexual couples. In either event, the word "marriage" will cease to be used as it is today.
This is not a need on my part...it is merely an observation and conclusion based on the history of our language. The meanings and usage of words change over time. If the word ceases to have relevance...it dies. Look at the word g*a*y...a very appropriate example..50 years ago the general usage of the word was very different than today. The older meanings (happy, joyous) are on their way out, with the current meaning well on its way to being the sole meaning. - Reply to this comment
- I have shied away from answering nothing.
Posted by Caeric
If this is true then just tell me. How will being married make same-sexx couples equal?...
Posted by guysdigdirt at 07:34 PM : Oct 01, 2008
gdd...
I''ll take this one up...
from a legal perspective it would mean that same-*** couples would have all of the legal obligations and benefits that heterosexual couples have.
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.
From a social perspective, equality may or may not be attainable, but I can think of no reason why legal equality is not. - Reply to this comment
- I have shied away from answering nothing.
Posted by Caeric
If this is true then just tell me. How will being married make same-sexx couples equal?
I still say you do not have all your ducks in a row and you want something from someone else but cannot say why the other person should give it up so you can have it. - Reply to this comment
- I have shied away from answering nothing. I have explained in multiple ways, both this and how homosexuality is normal. There is obviously no way to help you understand what you refuse to understand.
It reminds me of the child who asks a question, then, when the explanation starts, puts his fingers in his ears and starts yelling, then proceeds to ask the same question again, faulting the teacher rather than his own refusal to listen.
As such, I am finished with this conversation.
Posted by Caeric
Now that does sound like a child, I cannot tell you why so I will blame it on you and then stop talking.
You are wrong!
Homosexxuality is not normal. It might be natural as it happens in nature, but it is not normal.
Marriage will not make same-sexx couples more equal to straight couples, and why do they want to be? Homosexxual people are not straight, why do they want to appear to be? Will we one day be asked to call them straight? Even if we do, it will not be true. - Reply to this comment
- "Marriage", by whatever name, has occurred throughout history. Many cultures have performed same-*** marriages. You cannot say ''''has always been'''' even though you refuse to look outside your own culture and limited understanding of the world.
Posted by Caeric
We are not talking about outside the US. If you are outside the US or talking about outside the US then we just need to break off this conversation because it does not have any effect on what happens here. I can find an arguement against anything you want if I can make up or use foreign excuses.
Marriage in America, has always, well until the homossexual community recently changed it, been one man and one woman.
We are not talking about other names it might be known by, marriage, the name marriage is what this conversation is about.
And you still have not told me why being married will make someone equal to another. - Reply to this comment
- Correct, so why do the same-sexx couples want to make it mean something different than it always has? They do not own it so why do they want to change it? It has always been one man and one woman. Why do they want to change that? - Guysdigdirt
"Marriage", by whatever name, has occurred throughout history. Many cultures have performed same-*** marriages. You cannot say ''has always been'' even though you refuse to look outside your own culture and limited understanding of the world.
You still have not told me why same-sexx couple need to be married to be equal. Tell me exactly how that works. Why do you shy away from answering the question? -Guysdigdirt
I have shied away from answering nothing. I have explained in multiple ways, both this and how homosexuality is normal. There is obviously no way to help you understand what you refuse to understand.
It reminds me of the child who asks a question, then, when the explanation starts, puts his fingers in his ears and starts yelling, then proceeds to ask the same question again, faulting the teacher rather than his own refusal to listen.
As such, I am finished with this conversation. - Reply to this comment
- Your "experiement" fails to include the possibility (likelihood?) that members of the community will cross gender boundaries for procreation as a necessity.
Posted by charlieot
So they will go against their natural tendencies and feelings to try to be normal?
I have nothing against homosexxual people, I have a number of friends who are just so. I do have a problem with them forcing thier beliefs down my throat. I do have a problem with them taking what they want at the expense of others. But I have that problem with straight people who do the same thing. - Reply to this comment
- Teaching that their marriages are *not* real marriage is shoving your view down the throats of *my* children. Do you have any more right to do that than I do to force another viewpoint?
Posted by charlieot
I am not asking to change the definition of a word, you are. Marriage is one man and one woman. If I wanted to change the definition of ggay or lessbians to mean close minded, self-centered, haters of all who think differently than they do can I do that? Why should you change something just to suit your needs?
Just answer me this. Why do you need to be married? Will it make you normal? Will it make you better? Will it allow you the right to sue someone who will not perfomr your marriage due to their personal beliefs? Tell me why, please. - Reply to this comment
- The word marraige is so important because we live in the land of the free, and it is fought for because its also the home of the brave. (wow good line ::pats self on back::)
Posted by TipsyinCT
Another proud moron wanting to force their opinion on others, take what they want and *** those who thing otherwise. - Reply to this comment
