Jump to content

Apple joins Google in fighting Prop. 8


77 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...L&type=tech

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

Discrimination based simply on Skin color is no longer socially acceptible and it has an equally long and distinguished history. Why should discrimination based on sexual orientation be any more acceptible?

 

BTW, how does homosexual marriage, hurt hetrosexual marriage? I hear all the time that it's a "threat to the institution of marriage", but never an explanation of why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 {censored} are being disenfranchised here. If two {censored} 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 {censored} are being disenfranchised here. If two {censored} 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

Marriage is religious, not the business of the government. The definition of marriage may differ greatly from faith to faith. Denying rights to a certain group of people who have no choice as to what group they fall in is backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

 

Marriage is religious, not the business of the government.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

How is denying them the right to the civil institution of marriage, not denying them rights?

 

If they can't be considered "married", they can and have been denied access to their partner in a hospital. If the relationship breaks up they can and have been denied any visitation rights to children or alimony. There are all sorts of societal rights and privileges and obligations they can and have been denied without that stamp of "Marriage".

 

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

 

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how, it damages heterosexual marriage to permit homosexual marriages. What is is about this "definition" that is so special and so fragile, that it is so easily damaged?

 

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. I think some of the laws may even still be on the books in some places.

 

How is this any different from that or more defensible?

 

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.

 

This sounds like an argument for permitting {censored} marriage, quite frankly, not against it.

 

FWIW, in Japan and China at least, they LOVE the trappings of a traditional western marriage ceremony. In fact there was one church in New Zealand which the CoE threatened to revoke their membership in, if they didn't stop doing so many ceremonies for "pagan" Japanese couples.

 

According to your sig, you are from Utah, correct? I'm guessing this means there is a good chance you are a member of the CoLDS. Given that the CoLDS was persecuted for their polygamy, which was and still is considered nearly as much as an outrage against "traditional christian morality/marriage", isn't there something deeply ironic about the CoLDS opposition to {censored} marriage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...

 

If California is any indication, the universal extension of marriage rights in the United States is an inevitability sometime in the relatively near future. Wasn't it just in 2000 that something like 66% of them voted to ban {censored} marriage but now only 52% did? While it will be a little more difficult to overturn an amendment, the trends point conclusively in only one direction.

 

I've watched these proceedings and find myself deeply saddened by it all. I'd like to believe the vast majority of those who support the ban do so not out of bigotry or hate but just out of a general misguided concept of entitlement. I guess they think their concepts and beliefs regarding marriage are somehow more deserving than those of their neighbors'.

 

Speaking as someone living in Utah, the Mormon Church that I know believes in allowing everyone the privilege to "worship, how, where or what they may." They also expressly teach what they call Free Agency or the privilege of choice. They believe this so crucial to the pursuit of enlightenment or, in their terms, exaltation that they teach that one of the reasons Satan and his followers were cast out of Heaven was for wanting to deny mortal man his free agency by forcing him to never sin.

 

So I'm very confused why the Mormon Church and many of its members were majority contributors and participants in this endeavor. Such legislation goes against some of their most fundamental teachings.

 

I've also been watching the news and the Mormon leadership's response to these Temple protests and calls to have their 501c3 tax exempt status revoked. They called them bigoted and peppered with lies and called on all to be respectful of the beliefs of others. Having seen many of the advertisements in favor of Prop 8, which seemed to have used many of the same arguments the Federal government used when it criminalized polygamy to incite fear and misunderstanding with little regard for the beliefs of their opposition, I find the Mormon Leaders' current position rather ironic if not blatantly hypocritical.

 

If we expect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be respected, we MUST respect the rights of those different from us... especially when it doesn't effect us in any way. Those arguments of defending the institution of marriage, children, and the family's place in society just don't hold up to the data readily available. Governments around the world have been allowing this for years... Denmark in particular has been allowing same-sex unions since 1989! And if the lascivious stereotype of homosexuals is the motivation, as if they could possibly be any more lascivious than many of us, you'd think promoting stable monogamous relationships would be a win-win situation!

 

No... it's the hate-mongers and hypocrites enticing the hearts and minds of good people and making them unwitting minions in their campaign of evil. The legislation of morality is a slippery slope. Who will be next on their hit list? Live and let live because once you start arbitrarily limiting the rights and freedoms of others, it's only a matter of time before someone will be knocking at your door!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

With all due respect, they don't. For starters, they can't MARRY. Marriage is much more than just some religious rite carried out in a church. As stated before, there are many included benefits regarding taxation, healthcare, child custody, mutual property, even inheritance. Sure, with considerable effort, {censored} couples can approximate these rights automatically given by marriage through other legal channels but honestly, how fair is that?! I thought we already determined "separate is inherently unequal." See Brown vs. The Board of Education (1954). I find it rather obscene that you would deny them the convenience and legal recognition of marriage just to cater to your own sensibilities. This is about them and their relationship and not whether you approve of their spouse.

 

Personally I would think you would welcome this diversity. I don't know about you but seeing a secure openly {censored} couple provides me two things. One, a sense of well-being. As long as they are safe to lead the life of their choosing, so am I. And two, it has given me the opportunity to field questions from two very special young men that I have been blessed with. Their mother, I, and their entire extended family take great pride in being able to share our own values and beliefs but we want them to question and reason out their own values and beliefs. True character is not a product of obligation to social norms or time honored tradition. Have more faith in your traditions. Diversity allows us opportunity to exercise our faith through choice instead of being passively swept along by uniformity which requires only mindless obedience with precious little faith at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Of course, I was talking about the institution of marriage.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

You can start your research with Nero and Elagabalus. Admittedly, Nero isn't the best example, but it is the easiest to find information on.

 

This was then all put to an end in 342 when {censored} relations, including marriage, were banned in Codex Theodosianus L. IX. tit. VII, 3: "When a man submits to men, the way a woman does, what can he be seeking? where sex has lost its proper place? where the crime is one it is not profitable to know? where Venus is changed into another form? where love is sought and does not appear? We order statutes to arise, and the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those guilty of such infamous crimes, either now or in the future, may be subjected to exquisite penalties."

 

While many cultures through history have indeed looked down on same sex relations and unions, it has not been universal.

 

What has been universal is that the fears of what may come from the acceptance of same sex unions never seem to materialize when a society does accept it. Any of the ills of a society that are usually pinned on things like same sex marriage (say, the excesses of Roman culture), when properly researched, end up having roots elsewhere.

 

So again, I ask:

What good comes from "preserving the definition of marriage"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

 

Would you like to bring back slavery too? ;)

No. I wouldn't. :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

 

 

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.

Good point! I can still remember how all those ignorant boneheads used to say that interracial marriages would develop children that looked like zebras ;) Now some of the same people are trying to say that {censored} marriages somehow discount heterosexual marrages. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I might interject here... social evolution is a process not an end in and of itself. These tousles and setbacks serve a purpose. You can only solve an issue if you wrestle with it first. If anything the passing of Prop 8 has thrown some very important issues into the limelight.

 

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=4755980

 

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic but there is still room for progress on equal protection under the law. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this day and age, in a time around the world when there is so much childish finger pointing, hatred, terrorism and division of fellow man, I think we need all the love in this world that we can get. Anyone trying to kill love, especially someone who professes to be "religious" in the name of a loving God, is a hypocrite. Ironically in religion they teach that you will find the devil in the least expected place, and that least expected place is of course, religion. Is that why, perhaps, that many trapped in religion are trying to kill love around this world, and replace it with hatred? Hiding behind a loving God - doesn't make you loving.

 

I think Keith Olbermann said it most profoundly;

 

(if you prefer to listen to the video instead of reading below, then click here)

 

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 {censored}, 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 {censored}.

 

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 happinessthis 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 {censored} 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.

 

How prophetic that so long ago the Beatles wrote about the world only needing love, and still in this day and age there are some people who still haven't learned that valuable lesson :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...