google takes stand against prop 8

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2008
google takes stand against prop 8
127
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 2:09am

Just a happy little moment :)


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


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.


Posted by Sergey Brin, Co-founder & President, Technology




 

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-07-2003
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 5:10am
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-07-2003
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 5:41am
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2006
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 8:39am

No, that was not a personal attack and you know it.

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 8:53am

>>So from your viewpoint you see that the right to marry someone of the same gender comes solely from a court decision.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-29-2003
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 9:19am

>>No way are kids born gay.


 


Mich

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 9:27am

>>I find your phrase "Let me break this to you gently..." to be slightly condescending if not downright rude. Overlooking that, you falsely claim that anyone who is sexually active is at risk for health issues.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 9:31am

My minster preaches marriage equality, performs marriages for same sex couples, we fly the rainbow flag outside our church and have banners urging a no vote on Proposition 8 on our bulding.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 10:17am

Whether you like it or not, a "gay issue" is on the ballot in California (actually it isn't a gay issue at all, its a civil rights issue), making it a perfectly fine topic for a message board titled "Moms & Politics".

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2008
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 10:21am

>>If the right to same sex unions comes from a court then it isn't really a right at all. I have always recognized that rights come from a higher place than a courtroom. One place I feel would be a more appropriate source than a state supreme court is the voters of the state. Courts are duty bound to interpret the application of laws. not to make new laws. The voters and the legislature make new laws or restate or reinstate old laws.

Actually, you're a little confused on how our court system works. Rights are dictated by state and our federal constitutions. The supreme court of California recently ruled that same-sex marriage is a right guaranteed by the California constitution. In other words, it determined that the law allowing same-sex marriage is constitutional. Last year in Maryland, the opposite happened. The court determined that the law banning same-sex marriage is constitutional. Different outcomes with virtually the same process.

Voters get a say in what the state constitution says, but it is intentionally difficult to do so. Along with many other states in the union, California voters will now have the opportunity to decide whether to change its constitution to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry one another. (Please note, the court determined that this right is allowed by the constitution as it is currently written; a constitutional amendment will therefore restrict that right.)

Laws do not dictate rights. Laws restrict rights and may extend rights, but these must first be determined by the constitution (state or federal). We are governed by a three-prong system-- administrative, legislative and judicial. Each of these plays a role in the laws of the land. Remove one, and the system fails.

And by the way, this process is designed to protect the rights of minorities. School segregation is a perfect example. The majority of voters (and elected officials) in some states felt that blacks didn't have the right to be educated alongside whites. Today we understand that they were completely wrong. Thank goodness the courts found those laws to be unconstitutional. Under our current system, the rights of the people should never be a consideration of the voters.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2008
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 10:33am
Well said. I would have been TOS'd if I had responsed to the post.

Pages