Apple Inc. is donating $100,000 to fight Proposition 8, which seeks to end same-sex marriage in California by amending the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

"Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees' same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person's fundamental rights - including the right to marry - should not be affected by their sexual orientation," the company said Friday in a statement on its Web site.

Apple joins Google, which came out publicly against Prop. 8 last month. Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page reportedly have donated a combined $140,000 to fight the measure.

In revealing its support, Google officials voiced similar points, saying the company sees the issue as one of equality and is opposed to the elimination of fundamental rights.

"While we respect the strongly held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 - we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love," Brin said.

It is not common practice for either company to take a stand on political measures. It remains to be seen what effect the move might have on Proposition 8 supporters, who might avoid doing business with companies that oppose the measure.

They have something similar on the ballot this year in Florida, called Amendment 2. It amends the Florida constitution to state that marriage is between a man and a women only.

I would never cast a vote that only serves to put others down.

How is a vote to preserve the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years a put-down?

I voted no... homosexual people should have the right to be miserable too...

Plus, I'm not threatened by presence of same sex oriented couples. I would hate to see a same sex couple have issues attaining benefits and life insurance... blah blah blah.

Besides, same sex relationship aren't going to cease to exist as a result of it passing. I'm not saying I enjoy going through San Fransisco during Pride week, but I certainly respect people's choices.

Looks like Prop 8 is gonna pass anyhow. The good of marriage between a man and a woman prevails!
No, I find it bull that gays are being disenfranchised here. If two gay guys want to create a binding contract in order to receive certain benefits, then I say go for it... but don't call it marriage. Quit twisting the definition or go move to Canada.


Guru

Simple you are denying rights to one group, you are granting to another, based on nothing other than sexual orientation.

Marriage is religious, not the business of the government.

I am not interested in denying rights. They have every right I have.

I am interested in preserving the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years, with and without the blessings of religion.

Preserving society is indeed the business of the government. Marriage, while it sure is backed by religion, transcends religion. It's a 'social contract' of sorts. I know a few atheists who are married, as well as plenty of non-religious people who were never married in the sight of God, so to speak.

I am not interested in denying rights. They have every right I have.

I am interested in preserving the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years, with and without the blessings of religion.

To what end? What good comes from "preserving the definition of marriage"?

Also, the word "marriage" has not been used for "thousands of years". The word comes from the old french "mariage" and has only been used in the current form since around 1300 AD.

Now, if you want to get in to translations of words that pre-date "marriage", then you open up another can of worms. There are many texts from the time of the Roman Empire that record "marriage" between two people of the same sex.

As for the relation of marriage to religion, the opposition to same sex "marriage" in history coincides quite well with the rise of Christianity.

I'd seriously like to see what you're talking about with the Roman same-sex marriage.

How is a vote to preserve the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years a put-down?

What part or your thought process tells you that discrimination in any form is OK?

Would you like to bring back slavery too?

I don't know. I would also 'discriminate' against polygamists, so yeah.

For centuries it was considered equally sacred and important that people with different skin colors couldn't marry. There were laws against it, in something like half the states in the US until the late sixties and early seventies.

Some of us are still waiting for it to become legal to marry livestock

Everyone deserves the same chance at permanence and happiness.

This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8.  And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you?

In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble.  You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. Well if this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967!

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you?

Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love?

The world is barren enough. It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. 

With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your "religion" tells you to do?

With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do?

You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have.

Thats a powerful statement you quoted Maxintosh.

Yep, sounds bigoted to me. Business as usual for fundies

Do you realize that fundies are pro-polygamy in some religions?

Do you want polygamy to be re-legalized in the US?

I'm still waiting for an answer on how gay marriage damages heterosexual marriage.

Well, here's something

I would never vote yes, for any group of thugs that would attack an elderly woman out of primative rage.

Well, here's something:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01

1. Children hunger for their biological parents.

Homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. ....

2. Children need fathers.

If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, most same-sex couples with children would be lesbian couples.

3. Children need mothers.

Although homosexual men are less likely to have children than lesbians, homosexual men are and will be raising children. There will be even more if homosexual civil marriage is legalized.

4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.

A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems.

5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.

Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, it does suggest that children raised by lesbians or homosexual men are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.

6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.

One of the biggest threats that same-sex "marriage" poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage.

7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.

Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms.

8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.

The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades have seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children.

9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.

If same-sex civil marriage is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage.

10. Women and marriage domesticate men.

Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home.

Well, here's something:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01

Also, it's refreshing to see someone who is at least willing to admit that if you're going to open it up you might as well open it up all the way.

That's a pretty pathetic list. Half of them are how gays make bad parents, which even if you accept that, it has nothing to do with hurting heterosexual marriage. Most of the rest consists of basically "It's different from what we think marriage should be".

The only one that even vaguely claims that there's some way it hurts heterosexual marriage, is really a howler.

It claims it will reduce expectations of marital fidelity! Yeah, that's really down to gay marriage and has nothing to do with society at large. It's not like homosexuals are ever faithful to each other or don't get jealous or hurt if their partner is playing around with someone else.

"Family Research Council: Defending Faith, Family, and Freedom"

i notice their faith comes first, and their freedom is merely an afterthought

You asked me to tell you the harm of homosexual marriage.

A weakening of same-sex marriage is a harm to same-sex marriage.

No. You asked me to tell you the harm of homosexual marriage. I did. A weakening of same-sex marriage is a harm to same-sex marriage. You obviously don't think it's enough. That's fine.

If by substantiated you mean that there are studies that back this up, then they're substantiated.

By unsubstantiated, I mean exactly what I said in my responses. There is either not enough evidence to draw a conclusion, or, not enough evidence to draw a conclusion that the fear is related to gay marriage.

Take #2 "Children need fathers", for example.

The fear is that gay marriage will produce more gay families having children without fathers than there is today.
First, there is no evidence that this would happen. Second, there is no evidence that the children from monogamous lesbian families are any less well adjusted than those that are not. The evidence cited comes from single mother families -- a different dynamic altogether than a lesbian couple. The fear has no factual bases. It uses studies from unrelated situations and quotes from others with the same baseless fear as evidence. Third, it uses a "qualification as parents" as a qualification for marriage. If this were the case, there are many more heterosexual couples that shouldn't be married as well, but it is perfectly legal for these hetrosexual "bad parents" to be married -- and as a parent, I run into countless numbers of them every day.

The same basic issues are systemic through all ten "reasons" given.

So no, they are not "backed up". They are not even well thought trough.

If by substantiated you mean that there are studies that back this up, then they're substantiated.

Same-sex couples would by definition be either fatherless or motherless. It would be impossible to remedy the situation without redefining the relationship as something other than same-sex. Items #4 and 5 admit all that you say further.

Item 1 is well substantiated. Children do, in fact, yearn for biological parents. Cause for fear: a marriage relationship which by definition denies the child at least one biological parent would produce more children than relationships with both biological parents. Before we get into adoption or single-parent homes, I understand that sometimes it's impossible. I agree that 2 caring parents are better than one. The fear is that we are going to further a relationship that makes this undesirable situation (not knowing a biological parent) more prevalent.

Item 2 and 3 are well substantiated. Children do, in fact, thrive when a father is present. There is no denying this. See above, where I said that you couldn't have both parents unless you have both parents!

Item 4 is well substantiated. He quoted an expert witness stating that evidence on same-sex relationships is not well substantiated. So it's well substantiated that the evidence for same-sex parenting is not well substantiated. I don't know that there's a harm here, but maybe there's one that we're hitching our cart to a horse that hasn't been tested before.

Item 5 admits that it's not well-substantiated. The harm here is that, obviously, people are afraid that having more gender disorders is a bad thing.

Item 6 is well-substantiated, or at least admits that it may not be as well-substantiated. It uses more qualifiers than others. Anyway, I already talked about this in one of my previous posts.

Item 7 is well-substantiated. How much substantiation do we need for the idea that same-sex couples cannot procreate? The creation of a new type of family unit in which procreation is impossible would further isolate marriage from procreation. I would think the harm here is obvious. Procreation is one of the main reasons for having a family.

Item 8 is not really well-substantiated. It presents an argument about what will probably happen instead of what studies have shown.

Item 10 is well-substantiated. The harm here is that men will make poorer fathers without a woman to 'domesticate' them.

I couldn't find the part where it said "qualification as parents" (quotes yours).

For example, when I say things like "...same-sex men will make poorer fathers..." I fully understand that there will be some same-sex couples that make better parents than some traditional parents.

The harm is apparent.

The entire article was nothing more than one homophobics biased opinions.

Educated people aren't that gullible.

If an educated person is not 'gullible' enough to fall for rational argument and evidence

If an educated person is not 'gullible' enough to fall for rational argument

They want my approval of their relationship.