It's Goggle Inc's 10th birthday and, apart from explaining the birthday logo and a brief post on the presidential debate, the only Press Center release on its blog site last Friday is about California's Proposition 8 (Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act) on the ballot for the November general election which seeks to remove the right to same-sex marriage in that state.Our position on California's No on 8 campaign
9/26/2008 03:23:00 PM
As an Internet company, Google is an active participant in policy debates surrounding information access, technology and energy. Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions -- Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay -- we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on.However, while there are many objections to this proposition -- further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text -- it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. 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.
As there does not appear to be majority support for this proposition among Californian voters, one wonders exactly how this issue might affect Obama and McCain.
It appears that Obama has publicly opposed Proposition 8. However, this runs contrary to attitudes to gay marriage among demographic groups which are his strong supporters.
Another curly one for candidates in the run up to November 2008, which makes for an interesting national poll.
4 comments:
The future of society is at a crossroads here with Prop 8.
Men and women are different.That diversity is important. Each brings unique approach to raising kids and future generations. Removing gender will change the focus of marriage and why we promote it. This isn't about 2 people in love, nor about "benefits"; that's Domestic Partnerships. No need to destroy the purpose of marriage for a stamp of approval for personal choices of a few. Prop 8 isn't about "rights". Everyone is man or woman. All have right of marriage of man/woman. Some have no interest in that, their choice. But it is intolerant for them to demand redefinition for the rest. Changing it to include any combo of genders weakens marriage. Gays can live as they want. But society needs to promote marriage of man/woman, because it is critical for the future survival of society, enough that 4 judges ruling by fiat must not be allowed to override the will of the people on defining this most vital foundational institution of society. Friends, please, Yes on 8.
An Open Letter to Sergey Brin:
I just want you to know that the attack on Prop 8 you published in your corporate blog today was just too much. I know you don't care, but you need to know this matters. I'll never use Google again as my search engine. I'm removing all traces of Google from my computers, including the Google Desktop.
First of all, Prop 8 only seeks to restore the traditional definition of marriage which the voters approved in 2000 by over 60% with their vote on Prop 22, but which the California State Supreme Court improperly took away from us this past June. They never actually approved gay marriage. They didn't have the right to do so because, according to the California State Constitution, only the Legislature has the right to pass laws. What the Supreme Court did do was find unconstitutional some individual statutes that were revised by Proposition 22. Their decision left a number of regulations and statutes still in state law which, if they had really meant to 'approve' gay marriage and this effort had been done correctly, would also have had to be revised. But they couldn't do that because they are not the state's law-making body and we have a very strict separation of powers here in California. In other words, 'approving' gay marriage can only legally be done either by the California State Legislature or by a vote of the electorate through a ballot initiative, not by the State Supreme Court. They don't get to make law, which their decision improperly and incompletely attempted to do.
Second, you vastly underestimate the tremendous support for traditional marriage in this city. A couple months ago, within 24 hours of the announcement of so-called 'boycott' of the Manchester Hyatt Regency Hotel by a gay group that had been planning a demonstration for weeks because the owner of the hotel had donated money to support Proposition 8, proponents of Prop. 8 had gathered an equal number of supporters across the street to correct the misunderstandings about the ballot proposition that the other side was trying to spread.
In particular, you failed to mention that in the State of California, male-female couples can no longer be married as bride and groom. Not only do they have to fill out the marriage license form that now calls them "Party A" and "Party B," but they can't even have their marriage recorded with the State Office of Vital Records as Bride and Groom. How dumb is that?
Most people are completely shocked to learn that a man and woman wishing to marry officially as husband and wife in California now are now forced to marry in some other state. Last month a couple in Placer County wrote “Bride” and “Groom” next to “Party A” and “Party B” on their marriage license form and it was rejected by the Office of Vital Records. To have their marriage recorded officially as bride and groom, they would have had to get married in some other state! That’s just plain ridiculous! Couples should be able to marry has bride and groom if they want! A 'Yes' vote on Prop 8 would reverse this and allow couples to once again be married as husband and wife.
What's next? Gender-neutral birth certificates? This has just plain gone too far. A 'yes' vote on Proposition 8 will simply restore the traditional view of marriage most Californians respect and want without reversing the gains in appropriate rights provided to gay couples by existing domestic partnership laws.
I challenge you to open up your blog to feedback from the public, RIGHT THERE, beneath the blog. Allow us to comment right there. I dare you to really hear what people think about your stand on this issue. You seemingly only want to hear from those who agree with you! How dumb is that? And the fact that you have no way for people to really respond is so typical of Google.
Karen Grube
This is a moral principle, not a ’social’ one - either you are in favour of equality for human beings, or you are not. Either there is separation of church and state, or there isn’t.
Proposition 8 expressly seeks to remove a right from one group of individuals based upon their biological make-up; homosexuality is not a choice, it is a fundamental part of what makes them them. It seeks to exclude a group of people from true acceptance by society.
@sonamerica
No one is trying to tell you that you can't marry whomever you wish. It doesn't change the small print on your marriage certificate. It doesn't infringe on your rights.
You are the one who is trying tell them whom they may wish to express their love to. Whom they may wish to publicly demonstrate their commitment to. It denigrates their love, and seeks to exclude them from this truly beautiful ceremony that is a fundamental part of our society.
They aren't weakening marriage by wishing to enter into it, but in fact are supporting it simply by buying into it at a time when it is becoming less and less a part of modern society.
At stake here is an ethical principle of equality as important as integration, or the end of slavery.
No one questions today whether individual companies support integration, or reject the use of slaves. It is a given that there are ethical norms that companies subscribe to.
But it wasn't always the case. Companies used to support segregation. They used to support the use of slaves.
This changed, and society is the better for it.
Civil rights are fundamental, and they are worth pursuing, even if the current conservative reading of some religious texts support the current state - which they did with both segregation, and slavery, or in appeals to "traditional values."
Companies have a role to play in the movement to redress this. As ethical dilemmas become apparent, positions have to be clarified. Google has done this in the case of Proposition 8, and their unequivocal position is refreshingly principled.
The alternative is the moral ambiguity exercised by IBM in Nazi Germany. Their relativism allowed them to ignore the ethical dimension of their participation, and rightly history has condemned them for it.
It is, of course, disappointing that Google has an imperfect record in this regard with its acquiescence to the Chinese government’s pursuit of journalists. Perhaps this issue has a greater ethical proximity for Sergey and Larry - affecting people they work closely with and with whom they’ve obviously discussed this issue.
But to argue that corporations have no role to play in moral principles is a slippery slope to an ethical vacuum.
K.
The comparison to racial equality issues is a false strawman construct. Prop 8 is not about race. This is about men and women. Everybody is either a man or a woman, so everybody already has equal access to being able to participate in the special institution of marriage of a man and a woman, if they so choose. The purpose of marriage is not about expressing love and commitement to each other, and it's not about civil benefits, both of which can be satisfied by domestic partnerships. The diversity of a father and mother is important in the development of children in a family. Marriage is about recognizing the unique contributions of both a man and a women in a family in rearing and raising children, who are the vital future of society. Without diversity of gender in a marriage, marriage is meaningless. This is basic stuff. People are being blinded by a desire to feel progressive and tolerant. But to destroy the basic meaning of marriage is not tolerance. Destroying the essential meaning of marriage is intolerant and bigoted in reverse.
One seemingly compelling argument by the gay marriage proponents is the following: "How does a gay couple getting married across town make you love your own husband/wife any less?". But that is a strawman argument. Because this isn't just a petty personal issue about us individually. It is about our children and grandchildren and the future of all of society. No man is an island. It simply isn't true to say that gay marriage will have no effect on the institution of marriage of a man and a woman. Those who think that need to look closer and look at history. Gay marriage has already been tried in the Netherlands, resulting in a couple of things that were unexpected by the gay marriage proponents: 1) most gays (90%) didn't even bother to marry now that they could; and 2) traditional marriage reversed an upward trend and started a downward trend with rising incidence of childbirth out of wedlock. Although the causal relationship between gay marriage and the marked reversal in traditional marriage is not absolutely conclusive, yet the reversal happened at about that time without any other conclusive reason as to why. So, the vital institution of traditional marriage was weakened and for a very little benefit even to a very small special interest group.
Prop 8 is about marriage. And marriage is about children and families. The reason society even cares to recognize marriage is because the future of society depends on our kids. Marriage is about rearing children and helping promote stable homes where fathers and mothers, both bringing gender-unique approaches to the table, effectively raising our future generations. If that procreative foundation crumbles, societies die. Vibrant healthy societies place emphasis on families with husband, wife, and children.
To those of you who are my gay friends, neighbors, coworkers, and fellow-countrymen, I have a heartfelt invitation. You are a small minority, and I'm sure you recognize that. And that is ok. But please show kindness, love, and tolerance for the rest of us in the wider society and vote with us to help preserve marriage as between a man and a woman. I know you may not have any personal parochial interest in voting yes on Prop 8. But as your friend and neighbor, I'm asking for your vote to selflessly help preserve the essential definition of this vital vital institution that is so important to us all. Thank you.
I respect your right to vote according to your conscience. I encourage everyone to consider the future and vote Yes on 8.
Post a Comment