The Google corporation has announced its opposition to California's proposition 8, which would eliminate the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. As Google itself notes, this is an unlikely position for the company to take, as companies who have employees and customers with diverse backgrounds, beliefs, and political orientations rarely take positions on charged issues that don't directly relate to their business model. Indeed, many companies will sacrifice even the noblest of principles if their profit margins are at stake. But in this case, at least, Google has stood up and done the right thing, and we should salute them for it.
In the meantime, I'm waiting for the inevitable call by the American Family Association for a boycott of Google, which presumably will result in one of two things:
1) Shares of Altavista soaring.
or
2) The development of new search engine, "Conservagoogle", which will counteract the well-known liberal bias in Google's search algorithms. Search now, and each of your first ten hits guaranteed to reference Jesus at least three times!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It doesn't need to come from AFA (which presumably takes Sundays off): Prop. 8's supporters already are calling for boycotts.
Thank You Google! I will be a life long user from this day forward for your position on this crazy,right wing, fanatical proposition from people who have nothing else to do than worry about every one's business but there own.
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
"Couples should be able to marry has bride and groom if they want!"
And I should be able to marry my husband as Master and Slave. Hey, it's the status of our relationship, therefore the state must recognize it.
What BS. Marriage is a legal status and the state dictates what it involves. This is why adultery remains a crime in most states -- because the state can say that if you want to have the legal status of marriage, you don't get to pick and choose what it involves; you take the whole package or leave it. California's package now says that two parties, regardless of sex, may marry. You can call yourself bride and groom, master and slave, whatever -- it's none of the state's business. But in return, you don't mess around with the legal forms.
"Gender-neutral birth certificates?"
I like that this is put forward as the most horrible thing that could be done by the State of California. It reveals just how much this is driven by the terror that gender will cease to be the most important thing about a person. My God, you know what used to be really scary? The idea of birth certificates that didn't have a racial identification.
I think voters should be able to decide social issues without the financial influence of corporations such as Google. I happen to oppose legalization of marraige between two mwn or two women but that is secondary to the issue of corporate influence when not every stockholder supports it. I will no longer use google or support any other corporation who does this.
Thank you Google!
For supporting No on 8 --No on the ban on same sex marriage in California.
Because even though the other side has 65 million on their side, raised by conservative Churches all over america, when you google "prop 8" --the No side is still "winning" at least in terms of which side comes first, and how many articles there are about it. (Positive and ubiquitous media presence is key).
I don't know if this really means anything though, as i doubt neanderthals voting Yes to the unfair and hateful proposition will even bother knowing anything about the lives that they'll be affecting and the pain they'll be causing if it passes, much more even bothering to google more about it.
Sigh. 65 Million dollars. Imagine, churches collecting and raising that much money, just to rob people of their right to live who they want to live with and rob people of their right to marry whomever they want.
$ 65 million dollars they could've spend on building a more just society, not taking it away.
It's a historic battle, and I'm really nervous about the results.
I am praying really hard that Prop 8 will be shot down. We'll know by tuesday!
Post a Comment