Google backs gay marriage

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html

by kirubakaran • 18 years ago

85 135 18 years ago

googleblog.blogspot.com

sgrove2• 18 years ago

Wow! One generally doesn't expect that out of a corporation, much less from google. I'm very much impressed, and at the same time pleased with their stance.

I do wonder if I would be similarly impressed with it if their stance were the opposite, and whether I would feel comfortable supporting them by using their products and services afterward. Very gutsy decision to come out on a divisive issue like this.

qqq• 18 years ago

> much less from google

Why?

migpwr2• 18 years ago

it's probably because of the size of the company and what they're risking by having an opinion on this non-business issue.

samson• 18 years ago

I for one am not so impressed by Google's stance, at least not yet. Is the annoncement coming from Google(US) where it is less risky to take such a stance, or Google worldwide where value driven actions such as these would not be as appreicated in certain regions.

An example already brought up, is Google stance on issues related to China, where they've not been so resilent in keeping with their own values.

If Google wants to play this hand, thats fine, I even hope they take up bigger causes like human rights, and back it up with actions. But a two paragraph blog post simply will not do for me.

staunch2• 18 years ago

I wonder how much shit Sergey is going to take for this. Will it be enough to stop him from doing similar things in the future? The day Google stops being able to do surprisingly/crazy things like this is the beginning of the end.

oldgregg• 18 years ago

Yeah could be a real shit storm. I see a massive uprising in the valley while the SFPD sends an invading army into mountain view... courageous.

Prrometheus3• 18 years ago

If I were a shareholder, I wouldn't want my company to be running around taking stands on social issues unrelated to the business of the company. Let Sergey advocate against proposition 8 in his private life if he feels that strongly about it.

wheels2• 18 years ago

Agreed. I even removed my political affiliation from my Facebook profile since I'm "friends" with a number of business contacts there and I'd rather their opinion of our business not be formed by my personal political views.

lacker• 18 years ago

It's not just Sergey's position. It's Google's position. And it is very related to Google, since there are a lot of gay software engineers, this is very important to many of them, and Google wants to attract and keep these employees.

silencio5• 18 years ago

Companies do this all the time, directly and indirectly, i.e. on gay rights, what kind of benefits to extend to gay employees (see http://www.hrc.org/issues/workplace/cei.htm). Why is Google and Sergey's public announcement of this so surprising?

staunch2• 18 years ago

Then don't invest in Google, if you don't like how it's run. Buying a couple shares in a company doesn't mean you get to set the tone and policies of it. If enough people feel like you do then Google will suffer, as it should. I suspect this kind of unconventionality is a big part of what has made Google so successful. That's the primary reason I like this.

DaniFong• 18 years ago

The founders, their ethics, morals, and actions are in many senses responsible for the culture they have created and the products therefrom. They didn't even try to monetize Google in the first period: they were just trying to make good technology, and help people out.

You cannot extinguish this one flame without extinguishing others.

jwilliams3• 18 years ago

Personally, I have some concerns over this approach.

Google is a mediator between users and information. As such, it's really important to have and appear to have as little bias as possible - otherwise it taints the information that is coming through. To be effective as a tool, Google really needs to be transparent and impartial as possible. (See Google in China as a counterexample).

Also, I question how effective this approach would be. I'm not sure many people that oppose gay marriage would be swayed by Google's statement... I mean, Google has a strong brand, but I really doubt people will vote no because "Google says so" in the same way as they would with say, Oprah.

I think there are other advocacy paths that are more effective, and don't spend Google's brand/position in this way.

jfarmer2• 18 years ago

Yep, being brave is hard and has risks. Personally I'm glad Google is still willing to take them.

jwilliams3• 18 years ago

I wasn't arguing on the stance - just their approach.

There is no point taking a risk if there is no reward. I just don't see this as an action that would change people's minds.

I just believe Google has much better avenues for advocacy than this approach.

patrickg-zill2• 18 years ago

What is so brave about taking the politically correct view?

kf2• 18 years ago

This idea that neutrality is something to strive for ends up marginalizing the correct point of view by giving equal time to the opposing point of view. In this case, the correct answer is obvious, that gay marraige should be permitted at the federal level. Being neutral about gay marriage is like being neutral about evolution -- it only ends up making the creationists look more legitimate. They don't deserve any attention or neutrality. In this case, Google has no bias because they are right.

brandnewlow2• 18 years ago

So: "It's ok, because they're right."

As a journalist (one who just finished interviewing someone I find personally despicable but who's done something newsworthy and interesting so merits coverage) I like to think that my readers are smart enough to suss out their own positions on the things I write about. It's not my job to decide which of the different views on a topic I cover is "correct" or "right." My job's to describe them and how they relate to one another and let the reader do his or her homework on which one they think is right.

Drew Curtis has a great chapter in his book in which he rails against the media's penchant for giving equal time to "crazy people." He makes a great argument, but the problem is that it comes from an assumption that your readers are too lazy and dumb to make up their own minds about an issue, so we should be selective in how we treat different sides of an argument. That doesn't sit well.

mynameishere2• 18 years ago

Being neutral about gay marriage is like being neutral about evolution

What a strange analogy. Evolution is a natural phenomena, while marriage is a state-regulated union. There is a set of reasons apart from tradition why legal marriage exists, and very little in that set would apply with any frequency to "gay marriage". The most obvious reason, of course, is that the division of labor between the sexes is inevitably derivative of the constraints created by pregnancy.

Brin doesn't really argue beyond this,

we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality.

But this is an error. It's an easy error to make.

yters4• 18 years ago

How does giving equal time to different views marginalize any?

This also sets a dangerous precedent if those who present the arguments are convinced they know which one is right. If it is legitimate for them to favor one over the other, then they end up dictating what is "right" for the masses, which is essentially censorship.

Hexstream• 18 years ago

I totally agree, except for one thing:

Being right doesn't preclude bias.

logjam• 18 years ago

Google is taking a stand against bias. Bravo for them. They blew it on China - they may be getting this one right.

"Impartiality" on whether to treat people with justice or not doesn't scan.

psyklic2• 18 years ago

You're forgetting about Google's employees -- would you want to work for someone who refuses to take a stand on whether you can visit your partner in the hospital? Someone who provides full same-sex couple benefits in name only?

defen3• 18 years ago

Why exactly should I be limited to only one partner?

cbrinker2• 18 years ago

Why should anyone, or a collective entity, sit idly by while things are being said and done that they do not believe in?

Everyone is so indifferent to everyone else in this day in age. Why shouldn't Google (at least their executive board) be able to say that they feel strongly that gay marriage is a right that should be had?

Your style of thinking is a dangerous subconcious attitude that has crept across our nation since the latter half of the 20th century. Stand up for what you believe, because if you don't you may lose out on more than just your rights.

jdelsman• 18 years ago

Get rid of "marriage", and this whole mess would be a moot point. :) But, anyway, go Google!

silencio5• 18 years ago

$deity forbid gay people have the same rights as married couples without calling it a marriage. I have a feeling some people would still be offended like their own personal marriages would be under attack even if you removed all trace of "marriage" for gay couples.

Don't forget that couple that got offended at the removal of "bride" and "groom" on their wedding license: http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1239279.html

patrickg-zill2• 18 years ago

Did they donate money to one side or the other, or did they only express an "official" opinion?

And how would a person who was supporting Prop8 (say, a practicing Orthodox Jew, a Tibetan Buddhist, a Muslim, a Sikh, or a Christian, all faiths which explicitly proscribe homosexual behavior) feel about working at Google after hearing this?

wheels2• 18 years ago

Half of those also ban eating pork, but I suspect there's not been an uprise in the Google cafeteria.

Niten• 18 years ago

How would they feel about working at Google after hearing this? There are two possibilities...

1) Said Orthodox Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc., while privately disapproving of gay marriage, recognizes that his right to be offended ends where my rights begin. Said employee does not wish to shove his own personal brand of "morality" down everyone else's throats by codifying discrimination into the State Constitution, and therefore has no issue with Google's stance on the matter.

Or,

2) Said Orthodox Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc., is upset with his employer because said employee feels he should be entitled to infringe upon the human rights of others. Said employee is free to leave Google, as he is doubtless of little value to the company, or to society in general.

gscott2• 18 years ago

Google employees should be careful to not mention that they are "Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc". If they want to keep their jobs they need to align themselves with company policy.

carpo• 18 years ago

To someone who thinks that gay marriage is about equality, this could be seen as similar to a companies stance on racism or slavery (which is obvious now, but wasn't a hundred years ago). If Google believe that in the future people will look back on this issue in the same way, then this could also be a savvy business position. Also, in the eyes of Sergey, this is probably just another way for Google to not be evil.

makecheck• 18 years ago

Google is helping people to see that these decisions have far-reaching effects. Google is pretty confident that the vast majority of people like its products. So now you have to ask yourself: is it wise to cast a vote that would insult a large percentage of the people responsible for making the products you love so much?

astine4• 18 years ago

I would argue that they are more dependant on us than we are on them.

geuis• 18 years ago

Good on ya Sergey Brin. Its nice to see a company taking official support in regards to the things that affect their employees in non-work situations.

And for those saying companies don't take sides or make announcements, lets name a couple. Chick-fil-a is closed on Sundays. Why, because the founder is a hard-right Christian who thinks everyone should go to church or they go to hell. I worked there when I was a teenager, firsthand experience.

How about Dominos? The founder built a town outside of Naples in Florida strictly for Christians. Ava Maria, I think its called.

And don't forget SC Johnson, "a family company". Jeesh.

Prrometheus3• 18 years ago

I believe that Chick-Fil-A is a private company. The Dominoes guy probably built that town without using company funds.

There are good reasons for keeping one's personal life personal. If Sergey's comments cause a lot of controversy, I wouldn't be surprised if Google saw successful shareholder lawsuits. Using your company to comment on social issues is not acting in the fiduciary interest of your shareholders.

tbrooks• 18 years ago

When is the last time you saw Chick-fil-A write their political stance on their corporate blog?

jmatt• 18 years ago

Excellent point.

Never. Neither does In-N-Out, another privately owned "openly" christian company.

Staying private is one good way to alleviate issues with upset share holders and continuing to passively support the owners beliefs. This is fine as long as the company still respects the rights of the share holders, customers and employees.

As many have already stated, and i'll reiterate. There are two issues being discussed here. 1) gay rights. [no question they should have equal rights] 2) entangling support for social issues with a public company [this is where people have problems].

All the publicly held multi-national companies that I know of offer benefits to a homosexual partner. But they do it through the normal workflow of HR. The problem is Google does everything differently. Including making this announcement. So the question remains is this an acceptable way to do it? Google thinks so. (now my libertarian free market tendancies come in to play) If you support the way they did it, buy some more Google and give them a positive blog article. If you disagree sell it or short it and go use duckduckgo or yahoo.

_xajm7• 18 years ago

Dear Sergey -

You're surely aware of how divisive this issue is by just looking at the polling on this matter. By taking a hard stand on a very divisive issue on behalf of your whole company, you are spending an enormous amount of your Google brand and influence on this issue. Right?

According to gaydemographics.org, there are less than 100,000 gay couples in California. Let's assume all of them want to get married. Let's also assume, which I think is reasonable, that those gay couples wanting to get married are already cohabiting, have plenty of food, have shelter, have access to world class health care etc - and after this huge expenditure of Google influence and brand change, that will be the same - but they might have a marriage certificate.

So, I just wonder why you chose that issue over this issue - that of AIDS orphans in Africa (unfortunately that label often hides the fact that these are real living breathing children). According to one.org, there are 12 million children who have lost BOTH parents to AIDS and are on their own now. This is a rapidly growing problem and there are estimated to be 25 million AIDS orphans by 2010. The sheer scale of this disaster is mind-boggling - yet it's mostly an information problem that needs to be solved. These children need parents. There are many couples around the world that are eager for children. Who better than Google to find a solution? For many of these children, adoption would mean hope where now there is only despair. As impactful as a marriage certificate would be to 100,000 gay couples in one of the richest states of the richest country - I'm guessing an adoption certificate would be tremendously more valuable to these children who are truly destitute. And I'm also guessing this would be much more inspirational and unifying to Google's share-holders and users.

In deciding on where to spend your resources, I would suggest watching this: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global...

and reading this (the irony is not lost on me): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118124139854628069.html

I can understand the draw to be edgy and controversial, but sometimes the causes which are most worthy also are the least popular. I applaud the work the Google Foundation is doing, don't get me wrong - but please consider the costs vs benefits to Google in working towards these two pieces of paper I mentioned: the gay marriage license for wealthy westerners or the adoption certificate for a destitute, yet living breathing child who has lost both parents in Africa.

Cheers, Matt

bdr3• 18 years ago

I don't think they took this stand to be edgy, or to allocate brand capital towards some public good. They took it because their employees wanted them to, complemented by a personal belief that it's the morally right position to take. Microsoft was going to take a similar position several years ago -- also from employee pressure -- but backed down.

Edit: Here's what I'm referring to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04...

_xajm7• 18 years ago

Yeah, my point is not that there's anything wrong with being edgy or allocating brand for some public good. Look at Bono and the One campaign for example.

The point is that Sergey has many "public good" issues to choose from. Some issues will have far greater impact on relieving suffering in this world - especially for those who have little or no voice themselves. Some issues will have a much smaller impact, especially for those who already have a lot of power and are wealthy and very vocal about their issues. Some issues will be very divisive among Google shareholders and users. Some issues will be very uniting.

It's really a matter of choosing what to do with your resources - and Google is a public company now - not a privately owned company by Larry and Sergey. Employees and shareholders are on both sides of this issue - what may be 'obviously the right thing to do' for some of his shareholders is 'obviously the wrong thing to do' for others. This is a divisive move for his company on an issue trying to help already very powerful and wealthy advocates. To spend brand capital so heavily and unilaterally like this when you could be doing so much good elsewhere and at the same time build unity among shareholders and strengthen your brand - just seems like a poor decision.

silencio5• 18 years ago

You think Google using its influence to go against Proposition 8 is something, I don't want to know what you think about individual Mormons donating $6.4 million dollars to support this nonsense proposition. I'm not even beginning to count all the other donors. Also let's note how none of this would be an issue if some people would just STOP pushing their beliefs on others..that would be tens of millions of dollars that could go elsewhere.

Compared to orphans in Africa, yes, I'm going to sound rich and spoiled, but Proposition 8 is here now and it needs to be dealt with now. There are other NGOs and others trying to deal with crises worldwide (and I do donate as much as I can in every way to them), but I have to do my own bit to get rid of this deranged proposition November 4th because I really, really want to have the ability to get married to another woman and still have the same rights as, say, my heterosexual parents do. So forgive me and lots of others (Brad Pitt? Ellen DeGeneres? Steven Spielberg?...) for caring so much about something that affects us deeply.

For what it's worth, I may have access to world class healthcare, but it's costing me an arm and a leg. Should I be unable to afford it, well, I don't even want to go there.

(In the end, I'm not really disagreeing with Matt here. I don't think they're exclusive of each other, but I think Sergey thought Prop 8 was a way more pressing issue that could potentially end soon, and Google's support could only help. I would not mind seeing an easier way to adopt children since I plan to do so in the future, but honestly Google isn't gonna turn into an adoption agency anytime soon and I'm sure many people already use Google to find out more about the whole adoption process to begin with.)

lunchbox• 18 years ago

Prop 8 is a "way more pressing issue" than AIDS orphans? In what sense?

13ren2• 18 years ago

The best is the enemy of the good - Voltaire

Comparing someone's efforts with what they could have done is a way to deflate and discourage them. While I don't think Sergey will care about your attitude (or even be aware of it), I care.

It's not that Sergey can only ever make this one comment in his life, and he has to pick the very best use of it. He can support more than one cause - and perhaps the journey of a thousand miles starts with the ground under your feet?

_xajm7• 18 years ago

Great point. Someone like me could come along to anything good someone is trying to do and say "Hey, what about the orphans!" You do have to start where you can and with what you have - and doing one thing doesn't mean you can't do another later.

Sergey holds a special place in the world since he is one of the wealthiest ($15+ billion) and holds major control over one of the wealthiest companies in the world ($135+ billion - more than even Coca Cola). Most of us would say that places considerably more responsibility in his hands when it comes to taking on world problems. Just a sliver of his wealth can change the lives of millions.

So the letter really is an attempt at a wake-up call for Sergey. The homosexual marriage movement is wealthy, well-supported, and has a very loud megahorn. Using a public company to support a divisive political measure for already wealthy and vocal adults when there are children languishing elsewhere without a voice, just seems like a misplacement of Google's power.

psyklic2• 18 years ago

California politics directly influence Google's employees. Would I want to work for someone who refused to take a stand on whether I could visit my partner in the hospital?

Second, although AIDS orphans are tragic, a general "we support AIDS orphans" blog post would be considered rhetorical and would not get garner much additional support for AIDS orphans. However, voting is coming soon and Google's position on this will change votes in CA.

Third, yes theoretically I suppose that Google is "spending an enormous amount of Google brand and influence" ... but practically, they're spending ten minutes of Sergey's time to write a blog post.

Google is not going to lose business -- you can't use the Internet without seeing their ads. I also doubt that its brand name will be tarnished much -- some people may despise the move, but a lot of others will like Google even more (including myself). Many companies already provide full benefits to same-sex couples -- isn't this already publicly affirming them?

Tichy6• 18 years ago

Wow, what bullshit. It is not about the number of couples who might be affected. It is about fundamental human rights. Sure, it doesn't matter that much if somebody adds a certificate to their relationship or not - but to make it illegal is more than that, it is a public statement against gay relationships. It is a stepping stone towards hatred, intolerance, discrimination and all sorts of nasty things many people don't want to have in the society they live in. If you start to compromise on the rights of one group of people just because they are a minority, you open the doors for compromising on the rights of all sorts of people, just because they are a minority.

AIDS orphans in Africa is a completely unrelated problem, so your throwing it into the discussion is a cheap strawman argumentation. Also, not everybody agrees with Lomborg. Also, are you sure Google is not doing anything for the cause of AIDS orphans? They might have donated money and stuff.

Also, how much money has it cost to draw up the proposal for the anti-gay-marriage bill and organize the ballot? Why was that money not spent on AIDS orphans? Why were there enough people annoyed about gay marriage to warrant wasting a lot of public money on that useless debate? That seems much more scandalous to me than somebody wasting a couple of minutes to write a blog entry.

DabAsteroid3• 18 years ago

It is about fundamental human rights.

What are fundamental human rights?

http://www.google.com/search?q=nonsense+on+stilts+natural+ri...

maxklein5• 18 years ago

Your argument is just plain old stupid. Not bad, not poor, just stupid.

Because there are big problems, one should not solve the small problems? Because I know of aids, I should not give a dollar to the local begger?

Please stop this bullshit about aids orphans in Africa - it's just propaganda by the charity organisations who want you to give them money. Children are children everywhere in the world. Those aids orphans are not abandoned by Africans - every human being has the nurturing instinct. Neighbours are not letting orphans starve in Africa. Africa does not NEED you to solve this problem - it is a large problem, but it's not a critical problem.

There are WORSE things, but they are not sexy. There are men who work their entire life shoveling coal for hardly any money to survive, but nobody cares about them. They are not cute, they are not small, so they are abandoned.

Don't let those charity fat cats shape your perception of where help is needed. THINK first! And everyone cannot fight the same battle, we have to diversify and fight different battles. So if you see someone doing nothing, then ask him to do something. If you see people already helping in one way, don't try to make them do what you are already doing, otherwise all these other problems will get ignored.

_xajm7• 18 years ago

You may notice that this letter is not to a private citizen working with their own resources - it's to one of the wealthiest individuals leading one of the wealthiest companies in the world. A company that is not primarily owned by him, but by investors all over the world. This is about using Google - a multi-national giant funded by the investments of others to take a large risk alienating users to help a cause that already has wealthy and vocal advocates. Big risk with other people's resources and little potential upside for those people - doesn't seem like a great idea.

zasz• 18 years ago

Which of Google's billion dollar resources did Sergey use? It's a fucking blog post. He can write pro-gay blog posts and still donate to AIDS orphans at the same time.

gm• 18 years ago

Ok Google... Keep it up and stand up to China... You got people's attention, now get governments' attention...

bdr3• 18 years ago

For all of you who are worried about your stock price: don't forget to consider what effect this has on Google's culture. From a business perspective, if you look only at the external effects, taking this stand probably does weigh out to a bad idea. But the internal benefits of employee loyalty and a culture of tolerance might outweigh that, making the blog post justified even from your strictly financial perspective.

froo• 18 years ago

To me, this boils down to a few simple points.

  Should Sergey have posted this on the official company blog? Probably not
  Do I support his position even though I'm not gay? Sure do.
  Are people blowing this way out of proportion? Absolutely.

michael_browne• 18 years ago

First of all, I think those who brought up the question of why THIS issue when there are other, more life-and-death serious problems in the world (such as AIDS orphans in Africa) are missing the point. Sergey didn’t decide to come out in opposition to prop 8 because he was just looking for some social cause to throw Google behind or because he thought it was necessarily the most pressing or deserving issue, but because it is something that will directly affect the company and the employees he is in charge of and responsible for. As he states, it "is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8." Clearly, this decision was made not because Sergey believes that banning same-sex marriage is wrong in the larger moral sense (though obviously he does) but instead because of the comparatively specific, micro concern of how it well effect the people who work at his company.

While Google surely puts more thought into how its practices affect society than the average giant corporation, it is hardly a charity and I don’t think this statement should be any indication that it plans on becoming one. "Don't be evil" is still a long way on the altruism scale from becoming a humanitarian NGO.

...

Is it, though, appropriate for a head of a public company to officially align said company on a piece of controversial (and not strictly relevant to the business) legislation? Well, perhaps not. In this situation however, I think it was an admirable and fitting action. It reinforces Google’s "not business as usual" stance and commitment to social awareness and doing good. Of course, though, there will be many who see this as the opposite of "doing good."

The values of tolerance, diversity, and meritocratic inclusion are, though, so fundamental to the company (and, when at its best, the Valley and the tech industry in general) that this seems like a natural and reasonable move. Though I agree there is certainly room for argument, particularly over specifics, here, many will surely see opposition to Prop. 8 as reflective of the above values. I took Sergey’s blog post as more a statement of "live and let live" and respect for all than as a focused and specific endorsement of gay marriage.

I don't work at Google but I do live in the Bay Area and I'm confident that the employee culture at the company is such that those with strong feelings against gay rights are used to keeping their position largely to themselves. In other words, conservative Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Sikh/etc. individuals who work there have, I’m sure, resigned to keep their religious convictions a personal matter in order to effectively and civilly participate in a diverse environment. Consequently, I would be surprised if this pronouncement causes much of a stir even from pro-Prop. 8 Googlers.

_xajm7• 18 years ago

Wow, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Seriously, great points. On a lighter note - I guess if we can get more AIDS orphans to work at Google, it would shift priorities ;)

epi0Bauqu2• 18 years ago

Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions -- Democrats and Republicans,

Please, isn't Google made up of 99% Democrats? I'm all for gay marriage, but that is a misrepresentation. One Republican does not make great diversity.

epi0Bauqu2• 18 years ago

This is obviously old, but a start at some data: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-02-...

rsheridan6• 18 years ago

What about libertarians? I don't know of any at Google (except for that guy who wants to build a libertarian city on an offshore platform), but I do know that they're highly overrepresented among hackers.

DanielBMarkham8• 18 years ago

As the father of a gay son who one day wants to marry, I am opposed to same-sex marriage. The word "marriage" has significant religious and cultural significance and this significance should be preserved. Same-sex unions with all of the benefits? Sign me up.

More significantly, I disagree with Google's taking a position on this issue. I think corporations should think seriously about taking positions in domestic, cultural issues. Civil rights issues? Go for it. Changing the definition of religious terms? Out of bounds. I'm not religious, but this seems to make the most sense in my own life. Google should do the same.

If Google wants to wade into politics, then welcome to the party. I'm sure they are comfortable with the results of becoming political -- when people with opposing views make and change the laws in order to diminish Google's political power. That's the way politics works. I'm also concerned with idealists who only whine about things that are easy and never take a stand where they could make a real difference or where it could really hurt. What about billions in China not getting the full internet? Well, to listen to Google that's a much more complex subject.

Right.

maur33n2• 18 years ago

I am opposed to our government getting involved in marriage, period.

Gays nor straights should have to turn to the government to have their unions blessed.

But since straights have such advantages given to them as a result of our legal system, it would be silly not to have the rights given to all.

Marriage is NOT a religious construct. It is a construct granted because of other dependent bodies of law, including taxes, health care, child custody, property rights.

Without marriage laws to assist, it is more difficult to have our courts administer the other dependent laws. You are therefore denying gays equal access to the legal system and its protections as a result.

You have the right to believe in whatever you want.

You do not have the right, in MY country, to deny other human beings rights or protections that others have.

Go to church all you want. Just leave me out of your bigotry.

DanielBMarkham8• 18 years ago

I'm not religious -- perhaps you missed that point.

Marriage is deeply a religious idea. Religions and their ideas of marriage pre-date all existing governments and other social structures. Therefore it would be silly to make an argument that marriage is government-based: it's not. Governments simply codified and wrote into law those commonly-held ideas of marriage. Later on, as society became more complex, sure, other rights were given based on these definitions.

Civil Unions offer all of the advantages of marriage without getting into a cultural war (unless you want to do that).

Sounds like you enjoy feeling very self-righteous about your beliefs, ie, the whole "in MY country" routine. I wouldn't want to deny rights to anybody. Why don't you calm down a bit and realize that you're trying to argue with somebody who basically agrees with you?

And don't call me a bigot. You don't know me, and based on your post you don't even understand my position on the issue. It's an ad hominem.

defen3• 18 years ago

> You do not have the right, in MY country, to deny other human beings rights or protections that others have.

I suppose you don't believe in imprisoning criminals then?

Tichy6• 18 years ago

I don't know how marriage is handled in the US, but in Germany it is more than just a religious or cultural thing. It has several legal consequences, for example if your spouse is unconscious in the hospital, you are (officially) only allowed to visit if you are family. There are also tax breaks for married couples etc. I think the legal reasons would be a main reason to marry, after some point, the state basically forces you to marry because it is kind of stupid to not be allowed to visit your ill spouse.

Personally I despise the hypocrisy of the state when it forces a certain value system on us with the marriage laws (like tax breaks for married couples - so the state takes a stance against unmarried couples for moral reasons).

_xajm7• 18 years ago

The primary argument for gay "marriage" seems to be equal rights for both gay couples and married couples. Another key argument I keep hearing is to "keep government out of the bedroom."

Couldn't both of those goals be accomplished without getting into a cultural war over the term "marriage"?

If "civil unions" are legislated to having the same rights as marriage - then that solves the equality problem.

Also, "civil unions" can have a much looser definition. So if there is a threesome of men that really love each other and want to make a life commitment to each other and have equal rights as a married couple, they could do so. However, with gay "marriage" that would not be possible unless it also included plural marriage - and given our nation's history that's pretty unlikely.

"Civil Unions" just seem to be much more flexible in preserving rights of people in minority situations. Even for non-homosexuals. I had good friends who were cousins in their 50's and had lived together non-sexually for over 30 years. They were inseparable and they shared all their resources. When one of them had a brain tumor and was in the hospital, fortunately because they lived in Germany, it was no issue, but if they had lived in the US, there would have been issues with visiting, etc from what I hear. For them "marriage" would not be something they wanted obviously, but it would have made their lives much easier in many situations if they could have had a "civil union".

So, I'm all for having equal rights and government out of the bedroom, but gay marriage just doesn't seem to be the right solution for those two goals. 1) It leaves out other very legitimate situations where companions - either non-sexual or plural arrangements would not have equal rights, and 2) it starts a divisive cultural war that could be avoided. Peace and love right?

cbrinker2• 18 years ago

So you support "seperate but equal?" That was the winning attitude of our nation for about a century; and that turned out just dandy!

Why should polygamy or polyandry be outlawed? If multiple people feel they love each other enough that they wish to be bound by the legal act of marriage, who are you to say otherwise? Who does it hurt?

This concept of marriage and single sex partners is not only anti-evolutionary, but is only backed by religious nonsense. Granted some animals wish to be this way, but why should anyone say others cannot?

khafra• 18 years ago

I see a common thread between your post and the gp--marriage vs. civil union is an artificial distinction. The best solution I've heard is to remove government-sanctioned marriage, and replace it with civil union. Religious institutions can still perform religiously-recognized marriages; so there's no controversy over eroding definitions. Government gives the same rights and privileges to civil unions, regardless of who's involved in them, so there's no controversy over differing levels of privilege.

The only push-back I anticipate would be from the Dominionists who can't stand seeing church and state separate a little further.

Google backs gay marriage

Related Stories