Bezos pledges $2.6M to support same sex marriage

https://mashable.com/2012/07/27/bezos-same-sex-marriage/

by frankphilips • 14 years ago

111 141 14 years ago

Zirro2• 14 years ago

As someone who isn't entirely familiar with this concept of pledging money for or against laws (I'm not from the US), I wonder: Where does this money go? Essentially, it sounds like you are buying the opinion of the people. Is it through advertising, or "bribes" to important individuals with power?

Retric• 14 years ago

Think of it like donating that money to PETA (or PETPeople).

PETA's goal is not to bribe politicians into enacting pro animal legislation, but to change how people look at the issue or when most people agree with them they can then inform politicians of this so politicians will then 'toe the line' so as not to offend voters.

Zirro2• 14 years ago

I see. But how do they change the way people think about this kind of issue?

chernevik6• 14 years ago

The money is spent on political advertising, organizing and polling. The intention is to influence votes on some electoral question, most often on selection of officers but here on a particular referendum.

A not-unimportant percentage goes to political consultants.

In financial markets it is well understood that brokers' fees, though a tiny fraction of transactions, are an important driver of marketing activity. It is widely thought that these fees create dangerous conflicts of interest requiring extensive regulation.

The possibility of similar forces in other arenas is not so carefully noticed.

dvanduzer• 14 years ago

Your concern here is over potential influence peddling in the influence peddling market?

afterburner5• 14 years ago

Not just to influence votes, but also to get out the vote. Getting out the vote doesn't necessarily change peoples' opinions, just encourages them to express it.

seldo• 14 years ago

In this case Bezos is donating to a group that is trying to popularize a particular law, which will soon be voted on by the population of Washington state at large -- so he's trying to buy the opinion of the people.

It is also relatively common in America for corporations to donate large sums to the re-election funds of officials already in power; they are often then granted concessions in their favour (e.g. George W Bush was very good to the oil industry, Barack Obama is friendly with coal companies).

While both forms are legal, people are generally more morally comfortable with the first than the second form.

learc8312• 14 years ago

>It is also relatively common in America for corporations to donate large sums to the re-election funds of officials already in power

Just to make it clear they can't actually donate large sums of money directly to the candidate's campaign.

slurgfest11• 14 years ago

Lobbying money goes basically to advertising to lawmakers, also lawmakers' campaigns are funded by support (the money then goes to advertising to get them elected). Supposedly this support does not give quid pro quos but in reality it often does.

walexander• 14 years ago

Does money really have any affect on issues like this? It's great Bezos is taking a stand, but what good will this do? What harm can really be done by Chik-Fil-A's CEO?

Here in NC the amendment to ban same sex marriage passed with something like a 20% margin. That was despite anti-amendment spending beating them by 2:1 [1]. People have fairly deep convictions about these things and I don't think a campaign commercial is going to sway anyone's opinion.

[1]http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/11021903/

true_religion5• 14 years ago

The purpose of money isn't to sway the opinion of people, its to mobilize them into actually voting or to signal to those actually in power that this is an issue that you Man-with-deep-pockets cares about.

mrgoldenbrown3• 14 years ago

Many states have a much closer margin, so swaying a few % can make or break a campaign. See the California case and all the money the Mormons dumped into the Prop 8 campaign. They used ads that basically lied about what allowing gay marriage would mean (saying things like schools would start encouraging kids to be gay), which helped scare just enough people.

sigzero4• 14 years ago

Please, they didn't scare anyone. When it is put up to a vote, in almost every instance, people vote for traditional marriage.

ceras• 14 years ago

In some states, though, the opinions are split closer to 50/50, and getting just a few more people to vote can make all the difference. I imagine Washington will be closer to passing than NC was.

Also, in presidential elections liberals and young people have a lower turnout. Maybe the same applies here and many liberals and youth in favor of same-sex marriage wouldn't be heading out to vote without either some coaxing or raised awareness. Some people probably have weak opinions or are unsure: I think awareness would push these people toward voting in favor. Just guessing, but it really doesn't sound all for naught to me.

Xcelerate• 14 years ago

I find it odd that what people do with their own money gets so much attention. First Chick-fil-A's CEO, now Amazon's. For someone who is socially lacking, could someone explain to me why these generate so much news?

true_religion5• 14 years ago

Their money spent is intended to affect change in the general population.

It's not as if they just spent it on cars and caviar.

bmac27• 14 years ago

People gravitate towards these hot button, black or white issues. And when a major figure (be it a company, celebrity, athlete etc.) comes out for or against one of these issues, it generates a lot of unnecessary buzz.

It's easy to rant about most people's priorities when it comes to the information they consumer (trivialities over real news) but the saddest thing to me is that the universally positive causes that public figures/companies etc. donate huge sums of money to (charities & the like) usually go unnoticed as a result.

afterburner5• 14 years ago

The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support "biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his own personal money.

learc8312• 14 years ago

>The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support "biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his own personal money.

Since it's a privately held company, I don't really see much difference.

Also Chick-Fil-A has been well known for decades, as a company that supports biblical principles. I live in Georgia where they're from, and I don't think they'd be nearly as large as they are today without the brand loyalty that support has built them.

mhurron2• 14 years ago

The issue with Chick-fil-A is not what the CEO does with his own money, but that Chick-fil-A the company donates money to anti-gay hate groups. Chick-fil-A gets their money from their customers. Personally, I would rather not have a hand in giving them more.

I'm sure that the CEO also gives of his own money to the same and possibly more groups, but that is his money to do with as he pleases. It makes him look like a bigoted ass, but that's his choice.

gddr• 14 years ago

Theres's A LOT of emotional weight attached to these kind of issues. People tend to pick one side and feel identified with them (ingroups) and get angry at people at the other side. Politics basically.

It's funny/depressing to go at certain forums/imageboards and see people CONSTANTLY attacking the same thing, every day again and again. If someone defends them (or attacks their own side) they are obviously gonna get angry.

rayiner17• 14 years ago

These people are funding public campaigns and making public statements with their "own money." It's not like Chick-fil-A's CEO said something to one of Chick-fil-A's board members and the media jumped over it. He spent millions of dollars trying to raise public support for anti-gay legislation. They generate news because they entered a public debate with heir actions.

raldi• 14 years ago

> Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and that company’s CEO, Steve Ballmer, each pledged $100,000 to fight Referendum 74

They mean "to fight for" the referendum, right?

ryanmolden• 14 years ago

Confusingly enough probably not. Our governor signed the marriage act into law without it being on the ballot for public vote (correctly in my opinion). Referendum 74 was started as a way to force a public vote on the matter. The people who started it clearly think/want the public to reject the law. I am somewhat nervous about the vote as outside the King county area (Seattle, Redmond, etc...) the state can trend fairly conservative. So them fighting the referendum would mean fighting against putting this up for a public vote and fighting for leaving the law in place as it is.

Edit: for more clarity in last sentence.

phil2• 14 years ago

Agreed, but that fight is over: it's going to be on the ballot.

phil2• 14 years ago

That's what they meant. A yes vote on Ref 74 will legalize same-sex marriage.

chernevik6• 14 years ago

Excellent. I can now express my view of heartily not giving a damn about my vendors' political opinions by reading a book bought at Amazon while eating a sandwich bought at Chik-Fil-A.

rayiner17• 14 years ago

I'm curious why you talk about it like its a good thing. Market pressure to get rid of incorrect social views is the only alternative to legislative action to force such change.

As a consumer buying a product, there are lots of things I value besides just the product I'm getting. I care about service, etc. Not being terrible people is also something I value, and I don't see anything wrong with reflecting that in my purchasing decisions.

slurgfest11• 14 years ago

I'm curious about the method by which one determines when a social view is "incorrect." Take a survey?

What if I think that marriage should be defined religiously by a religious institution rather than legally by the state? I guess I am "incorrect" for not supporting state-recognized gay marriage. But how was I supposed to determine this before you came along to tell me?

phillmv4• 14 years ago

>Market pressure to get rid of incorrect social views is the only alternative to legislative action to force such change.

Thank you.

This is why it infuriates me when you see lolbertarians going about how you shouldn't care. Of all people they should be the ones to recognize why this sort of stuff… matters.

nacker• 14 years ago

"incorrect social views" ?

Please let me know where to find the official canon of "correct social views", as I am anxious not to end up in the Gulag accidentally.

lkbm• 14 years ago

Political advertising would also work.

I'm opposed to dragging the vitriolic "I refuse to work with you because you're a Publican/Democrat/conservative/liberal/bleeding-heart/homophobe' behavior into a wider arena of life. I'm friends with and work with Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. and that's a GOOD thing. I don't want a world where our political differences mean we can't function as a society. I can't get my haircut there--he's racist or sexist or homophobic. No, he's a normally-okay dude who cuts my hair well.

I don't know how to best express this. Jon Stewart kind of talked about it at the Rally for Sanity when he mentioned how we don't cut people off for having a McCain bumper sticker.

Step one is to realize that being homophobic doesn't make you "terrible people". Three hundred years ago pretty much everyone was racist, sexist, and homophobic, but were in general as decent people as we are today; they just had some terrible beliefs, and terrible behaviors that came along with those beliefs.

chernevik6• 14 years ago

One of the strongest arguments for free speech is the practical impossibility of knowing which views are and aren't correct.

Another is the fact that pretty much every apparatus ever erected for the enforcement of "correct views" has ultimately been corrupted and abused.

danielweber3• 14 years ago

What if you have the incorrect social views, as determined by the society at large?

Let's say you were in 1880's Deep South and thought black should vote. Do you think there's no problem if people in town refuse to sell you goods for that? Is a Hollywood blacklist just something to shrug off.

Obviously you should not be forced, as an individual, to purchase goods or services from someone else you don't like. Going any further than that and society can strangle minority viewpoints almost as oppressively as government. If I refuse to deal with you, or anyone who deals with you, or anyone who deals with anyone who deals with you, than we move away from a pluralistic society towards one where the group most in charge at a given moment wins.

dragthor2• 14 years ago

Hopefully some day I can marry multiple women. Or maybe some day hopefully a mother and son can marry. Who is to say? As long as we are all adults and love one another.

tryitnow• 14 years ago

Actually, yes, I agree with that. I have many friends who are varying degrees of polyamorous and I see no reason to deny them the right to have legal recognition of their relationships and all that entails (including joint property rights, medical visitation, inheritance, and everything else traditional families take for granted).

As for mother and son, I personally find it distasteful, but why on earth should I care? Seriously? Are mother/son couples going to rise up and enslave us all, forcing us into incestuous mother-loving relationships?

Why should politicians define the specifics of social arrangements? Laws should be a platform upon which people of all persuasions can develop their own ways of relating.

Like an open source approach to social relations.

jonhendry3• 14 years ago

The parent and adult child combination arguably has potential for coercion that don't exist in other combinations, starting with "play along or you're disowned / out of the will / thrown out of the house".

cobrausn• 14 years ago

I know you're trolling, but I fully expect polygamists to see support for same sex marriage as a sign that they deserve the right to marry whom they choose as well, and start campaigning for it. I seriously doubt they will gain the same progressive fanfare, but I see it happening eventually.

As for the second part - the risks of incest to the children of such couplings (who certainly can't consent to being the product of incest) are well known, and it's worth a few laws and a heavy dose of shame to prevent such outcomes.

dragthor2• 14 years ago

I am not trolling. People need to ask themselves - why not just redefine marriage as any two (or three or ten) people over the age of 18?

There are lots of ways to prevent a child from being born. Still... any two consenting adults... brother-brother... brother-sister... sister-sister... should all be allowed to "marry".

Redefining marriage is the radical point-of-view.

kingkawn• 14 years ago

What is the argument against polygamy?

mrgoldenbrown3• 14 years ago

Marriage isn't about reproduction. If you want to outlaw incest, that's fine. But do it separate from your definition of who can get tax breaks, see each other in the hospital, rent a car together, etc.

mrgoldenbrown3• 14 years ago

I think it's funny that the Mormons, who were forced to give up multiple wives so Utah could become a state, are so opposed to "redefining" marriage.

sigzero4• 14 years ago

I am not sure about this but I believe that is one of the rules for any State to come into the Union. My brain is fuzzy on that one though.

bcbrown2• 14 years ago

Bezos has historically not given any high-profile donations, and the Seattle Times ran a series earlier this year bashing Amazon for its lack of "corporate citizenship". I wonder if this is a start of an effort to counteract that perception.

learc8312• 14 years ago

Personally, I don't support same sex marriage, bug legally I see no real reason to ban it. However, I'd prefer the government who represents me, not endorse a practice I don't support.

My solution for years has been for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely. Marriage should be a purely religious ceremony, and we can establish something like a civil union contract law to handle issues like joint ownership of property, child custody, and inheritance.

That way anyone, gay, straight, or polygamist can get the legal benefits of marriage, and they can find a religious institution willing to conduct the religious ceremony.

AznHisoka• 14 years ago

I agree. I also don't think it's an issue worth devoting much time over. Just legalize it, and stop debating it. There's so many more relevant issues at stake in society.

3am_hackernews2• 14 years ago

Why should the government endorse practices only supported by you? You are not special.

Marriage should not be a purely religious ceremony. It should be an individual's choice, consent of both the partners.

I don't agree that a religious institution HAS to validate/conduct a religious ceremony. Again, it should be left to the individual.

learc8312• 14 years ago

>Why should the government endorse practices only supported by you? You are not special.

I don't. However ~50% of American's don't support it.

At the same time I don't think there is a legal reason to ban gay marriage.

This is a proposed compromise between both sides.

glhaynes• 14 years ago

This seems like the optimal legal approach to me, too. And I'm not really sure why no progress is being made toward it: I've rarely if ever heard objection to it and a "government out of marriage" approach seems appealing to most people on either side of the gay-marriage-legality issue that I've spoken to. [Obviously this is anecdote and narrow at that.] I suppose it's just not politically possible right now — if it were to gather any steam, no doubt it'd get bogged down in "these people are trying to abolish marriage!"; and it seems likely a more difficult solution to legally execute well.

But the immediate question, regardless of whether government should be involved in marriage or not, is whether we should pass laws to cause the government to treat this institution that it is involved in in a fair and equitable way (and reject laws that would enshrine unfairness).

imgabe5• 14 years ago

We effectively already have that. A legal marriage is obtained completely independently from a religious marriage. The simple fact that the legal construct is called "marriage" seems to throw the religious types into a fervor, because they somehow think that changing the legal construct has some effect on their own religious use of the word. I guess the fact that words can have multiple meanings and be used in different ways is not taught in Sunday school.

There's no reason to change the name of the legal agreement known as "marriage" to "civil union" other than to pacify the superstitious.

learc8312• 14 years ago

Culturally we make no distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. The majority of people aren't even really aware of the difference.

So long as this is the case there will be opposition to any legally allowed civil marriage that doesn't follow the traditional definition.

Do you want to have this fight every time a new type of union wants the legal protections of marriage?

My solution is a compromise, the alternative is to have this fight for the next few years, and then a few years later start it all over again for poly-marriages.

>There's no reason to change the name of the legal agreement known as "marriage" to "civil union" other than to pacify the superstitious.

Since the "superstitious" make up a large percent of the country you might want to find a way to "pacify" them.

If we can compromise so that the majority of people are happy and no one's rights are violated, where's the problem? Unless you just don't want to "pacify" the "superstitious" out of spite.

Loic3• 14 years ago

The real problem here in most of Europe is that if you allow same sex marriage, you give the couple all the rights of a married couple. These rights include adoption. This is the main driving force against same sex marriage in most of Europe.

Same sex couples adopting is a very sensitive issue, I am lucky to have friends who adopted (in Germany we have less than 10 men couples having adopted), the boy is now a bit less than 2 year old and I am still wondering if this is a good thing or not. This is why I completely understand that the general population can react strongly as even me, being able to play on the floor with the little boy, being a rational kind of person and seeing the little boy smiling and happy, can still have some doubts.

bmj• 14 years ago

Some conservatives and religious types understand the construct of marriage to serve certain social purposes as well--primarily procreation and the raising of a family. I'm not advocating that perspective (history shows this isn't always the case), just merely pointing out the conservative argument isn't always "the Bible says so[1]"--it is also an argument that society functions at its best within the "traditional" concept of marriage.

[1] It is worth noting that while there are passages in the Hebrew/Christian bible that advocated "one man, one woman" marriages, there are plenty of examples of "Biblical heroes" who had multiple wives (David and Solomon come to mind).

slurgfest11• 14 years ago

Pacifying the superstitious is a very good reason, a perfect reason. Because it is creating a huge fight over nothing that will never end.

There is no reason for the state to name anything "marriage" or give any special recognition to the concept.

dpeck• 14 years ago

Sadly a legal marriage and and religious marriage are not independent. Thanks to fear of white women going off and marrying black men we have the legacy of marriage licenses to deal with, and at least in my state it is illegal for for a minister to perform a religious marriage without a civil license/contract.

Realizing that this affords some protections for those cluelessly love struck who could be left with no legal recourse should the relationship dissolve, it still pisses me off quite a bit that I need permission of any sort from the government to practice a religious rite.

TylerE• 14 years ago

That is what a marriage (in the United States) is. It is a civil contract. There is nothing inherently religious about it. You can go down to the county courthouse, pay $20 or so, and be married by a judge.

That some religions have a "marriage" ceremony is orthogonal. What makes you married in the legal sense is the marriage certificate you get from the government. Any ceremony is just for show. What the US Government defines as marriage is purely a civil thing.

learc8312• 14 years ago

I'm aware of that, but that's not the perception read my response up top for a more thorough explanation.

mfringel2• 14 years ago

"Government out of the marriage business entirely" would be great. Also agreed on the government providing civil unions that give all the current rights and privileges currently set up under what is currently known as marriage.

As far as I can tell, the only feasible way that we get there is by the states allowing same-sex marriage, and then the FedGov comes along for the ride, followed by FedGov doing a ''mutatis mutandis'' change in law to talk about civil unions.

rayiner17• 14 years ago

> and we can establish something like a civil union contract law to handle issues like joint ownership of property, child custody, and inheritance.

We have such a contract. It's called marriage. If you look at the law of marriage, there is nothing in there that's predicated on there being a woman and a man, and there is nothing in there that is specific to religion. In the United States, which never had ecclesiastic courts, marriage has always been a strictly civil, contractual legal construct.

The problem with a civil union contract is that the law is full of references to marriage. E.g. in the law of evidence there is the principle of marital immunity, which is that spouses can't be forced to testify against each other in criminal trials. Do you want to go back and rewrite all of that?

true_religion5• 14 years ago

There are laws on the books full of references to "men" or occassionally "White men". The Americans, "re-wrote" all that by adding a few lines to the constitution saying that women and other races had equal rights as white men, and could not be discriminated against.

Thus the old laws applied to everyone,without a need for someone to go at them with eraser and ink.

danielweber3• 14 years ago

Do you want to go back and rewrite all of that?

You know that's pretty easy to fix, right?

There may be other problems with his proposed solution, but it's trivial for a legislature to say "where we said BAR in the past, we also mean BAZ."

briandear2• 14 years ago

I wonder if Bezos will stop selling Chick Fil'A stuff. http://www.amazon.com/Pez-Chick-Fil-A-Cow-Sealed/dp/B003RMEB...

briandear2• 14 years ago

Here's the short answer: government stay out of my life. Keep us from getting blown up, make sure we can get from one place to another and help keep my stuff from getting stolen.

I'll take care of the rest.

If people (Gay or Straight) want to have a corporate merger and agree to co-mingle assets, then they should have that right. If they want to join a church that bestows upon them the title of "married" then they should have that right, provided they meet the church's definition or requirements to achieve "marriage." If they don't agree with the church, they can start their own or just not have a church. The government should not be the arbiter of religious beliefs except in cases when religious beliefs directly compromise another's rights (i.e. honor killings.)

mhurron2• 14 years ago

Despite what many people think, this has nothing to do with religious beliefs or institutions or said institutions conducting a wedding.

It is entirely about the legal construct of marriage. By your own words this is the governments place as people are using their religious and moral beliefs to restrict others civil rights.

slurgfest11• 14 years ago

No, it really does have a lot to do with religious beliefs and institutions because those are examples of the kinds of social communities which define marriage and the kinds of institutions which carry traditional culture. Traditional cultures are where the idea of marriage comes from and cultural communities are what give it any meaning.

That doesn't mean all traditional ideas of marriage have been the same, they haven't (any more than cultural ideas of homosexuality or gender-bending have been the same). That doesn't mean you aren't free to choose or make your own religion. but doing so doesn't remove the historical context and social meaning of "marriage."

Having me use a certain terminology with regard to your relationship (let alone believe certain things about your relationship) is NOT your civil right.

It isn't the government's business to provide financial incentives for "marriage" either.

You should be able to have any person you want to visit you in the hospital, however. Could be your horse trainer, why should it matter?

Bezos pledges $2.6M to support same sex marriage

Related Stories