This opinion is not going to make me popular here, but if I were a Google shareholder (and I probably am through an ETF) I'd be a little upset by this. And I say this as someone who has been for gay marriage since before it was cool. I'm a gay marriage hipster. But this still irks me.
I want companies to lobby only for the issues that are their immediate business (and I say that only because I know we'll never get laws banning lobbying at all) and let their shareholders privately endorse their beliefs. I see this as another example of corporate personhood.
Even though I have no sympathy for people who are opposed to gay marriage as private citizens, as Google shareholders I don't feel they should be forced with a choice between supporting their beliefs (however wrongheaded they may seem to me) and being a Google shareholder.
I also feel a little gross thinking about an American company preaching tolerance to Singapore. How about we get it fixed here before we start pressuring everyone else?
Some significant percentage of Google's employees are gay. Helping those employees achieve equal rights to everyone else improves those employee's lives not just in the feel good sense but it also makes a lot of practical things like health insurance benefit sharing much more straight-forward.
By lobbying to improve the lives of its employees, Google is improving Google. So as another heterosexual gay marriage hipster I disagree with you.
I also disagree with you that Google shareholders opposed to gay marriage shouldn't be forced to choose. They are just as wrong in their beliefs as those who supported segregation were or those who were against women's suffrage were. Marginalizing these people for their ridiculously antiquated beliefs is fair game, IMO.
It irks me a bit and I am not a Google shareholder. If it were just the US, I'd be for it. But a global campaign, no, I am 100% opposed. How many ways can you say "Cultural Imperialism?"
It's not that I am opposed to gay marriage. In fact as regards the US, I am for it. However.....
Marriage is deeply cultural. It means remarkably different things in different places. Something like 30% of Japanese marriages are still wholely arranged. Another 30-40% are at least partially arranged. Marriage is seen very much as a matter of extended families and so personal choice doesn't have as much to do with it as we see in the US. So suppose you legalize gay marriage? What then? Are you going to insist that the Japanese adopt our individualistic notions of marriage too?
It seems to me that the idea of marrying someone you want is a human right is nothing more than projecting our cultural preferences out to the rest of the world.
Fortunately cultural diversity is not threatened by recognizing new legal arrangements. Societies will find other ways of regulating norms, just as Japan has done following legal changes to marriage laws imperially imposed by the allies following WWII. So fortunately even if successful it will not have a major impact.
You have to get used to the idea that Google is the kind of company that has a different sense of priorities than most public companies. For starters, they prioritize employees over shareholders, which is why the food over there is still free despite costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars every day in food alone.
But more than that, Google is philanthropic, humanist and a scientific activist. Don't invest in them if you are not comfortable with these ideals.
Why would it make you upset that people have to choose between their personal beliefs and owning Google stock? This is the entire idea of the free market. There's absolutely no coercion at play.
I understand being upset about what your government does. You can't easily escape being part of that. Anyone who doesn't like what Google is doing is free to disassociate themselves in an instant.
This opinion is not going to make me popular here, but if I were a Google shareholder (and I probably am through an ETF) I'd be a little upset by this. And I say this as someone who has been against whites-only laws since before it was cool. I'm an equal rights for coloreds hipster. But this still irks me.
I want companies to lobby only for the issues that are their immediate business (and I say that only because I know we'll never get laws banning lobbying at all) and let their shareholders privately endorse their beliefs. I see this as another example of corporate personhood.
Even though I have no sympathy for people who are opposed to negros as private citizens, as Google shareholders I don't feel they should be forced with a choice between supporting their beliefs (however wrongheaded they may seem to me) and being a Google shareholder.
I also feel a little gross thinking about an American company preaching tolerance to Singapore. How about we get it fixed here before we start pressuring everyone else?
You can make a strong business argument for this move, I think. Google comes across as young, hip, ahead of the curve, and that's among it's most key user base. It's an interesting concept but actually helps their PR with people they need most. "Pink-washing" if you will :)
It will not change issues that are part of its immediate business.
Instead google will be seen by others as a champion of freedom. A good force. Something that isn't "evil".
Therefore, the purpose of this strategy is twofold
One, is that you get something that helps out your employees.
Two, you get to be seen in the world as a progressive force of change. By changing the public perception can do no wrong or that google is a champion of good is worth more. This is a marketing program that you do if you have billions to use.
So, you are right. There is no reason that this is relevant to its immediate business. It's a marketing ploy that has the side effect of championing civil rights. I'm not complaining I think its great!
Even though I have no sympathy for people who are opposed to gay marriage as private citizens, as Google shareholders I don't feel they should be forced with a choice between supporting their beliefs (however wrongheaded they may seem to me) and being a Google shareholder.
I'd tend to agree but this isn't really about beliefs, it is about discrimination.
FWIW, if you read the prospectus before investing (I know, who has time for that), you'd find in the founders' letter to investors: "We aspire to make Google an institution that makes the world a better place."
Corporations are evil and self-interested by default, but that's not necessarily a condition for being allowed to sell shares to the public.
In regards to Singapore and Google's global campaign, other countries have far worse record of equal rights. Some countries like India still follows the Victorian code of sin as their legislature. Google is doing the right thing by making a noise about it.
Although I agree with that in principle, I think an exception can be made for anti-discrimination efforts, especially if said discrimination directly affects many company employees and shareholders.
What about disclosing information about Chinese dissidents. Should they do that, or not? Why does the answer seem more obvious with one moral problem than with another?
I don't think Google should be doing this, because I don't think employers should take positions on lifestyle choices of their employees. Nothing specific to gay marriage, I would also say that employers shouldn't push biking/walking to work over driving, taking the stairs instead of the elevator, eating or not eating a certain way, reserve premium parking spaces for "green" cars, etc. You can't make everyone happy so just focus on your business, please.
Issues of social equality are every employers immediate business, and most shareholders are not driven by the lobbying positions that companies hold, but rather a desire to profit. Also, if disagreeing with a company's positions meant having to sell your shares, then shareholder meetings would be even more boring than they generally are.
I'm a person of faith, who takes his faith seriously, and who's faith teaches that homosexual conduct is immoral. I think this puts me in a distinct minority among the HN community, but in a possible-majority among the American population (with the mainstream orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all teaching the same; and ~80+% of the U.S. self identifying as holding one of these faiths).
Given my faith, advocacy like this from Google, Apple, and other prominent tech companies really put me in a bind.
Their products have become such fixtures in my day to day life that I'm not sure how to get by without them, but by using their products and providing these companies with revenue, I feel like I'm contributing to a fund for someone to publicly proclaim: "You're faith is a sham; your God irrelevant; and, by the way, we think you are a vile, hateful, homophobic bigot".
I wish Apple, Google, etc. would all just focus on making insanely great products and not jump into the fray of divisive-by-definition social issues.
And, no, I'm not a "homophobe" or "bigot". I have friends who are gay; I don't hate them. I just think they engage in behavior that's immoral, just like others of my friends who sleep with each other outside of marriage, etc. I recognize my faith condemns such behavior - but I'd equally condemn anyone who insults, harasses, or otherwise harms someone just because that someone is gay.
> " I have friends who are gay; I don't hate them. I just think they engage in behavior that's immoral, just like others of my friends who sleep with each other outside of marriage, etc. I recognize my faith condemns such behavior - but I'd equally condemn anyone who insults, harasses, or otherwise harms someone just because that someone is gay."
And how does that in any way conflict with the support of gay rights?
The legalization of gay marriage in no way denies your right to morally condemn their behavior. It simply removes your ability to actively harm their lives by continuously denying them equality.
You do not have to approve of someone's behavior in order to support their right to do it.
In other words, your very claim that you are not homophobic, and that you would readily come to the aid of persecuted gay folk, should mean that Google's move is not objectionable. After all, Google is not trying to ban browbeating, but merely to assert the right for people to do as they wish, moral or otherwise.
So if somebody is pro gay marriage, they are telling you "you are a vile, hateful, homophobic bigot", but if you are against gay marriage, you are "merely thinking their behavior is immoral". I think your self evaluation could be improved.
I find it surprising (but cool) that Google takes a stand on a controversial issue here.
Think about it another way: if Google doesn't take a stand on other human rights issues, there is a huge scandal. For example if they were to reveal information about Chinese activists to the Chinese government. So why shouldn't they be expected to take a stand regarding other human rights issues, too?
I think this puts me in a distinct minority among the HN community, but in a possible-majority among the American population (with the mainstream orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all teaching the same; and ~80+% of the U.S. self identifying as holding one of these faiths).
I'm an agnostic atheist. At some point in my past I identified as "christian". At no point did I think gay marriage should be illegal nor did I think that gays were immoral.
Further, civil rights, interracial marriage (mine, for instance) and various other issues were deemed "socially unacceptable" by the majority of people in the US at some point in time. It wasn't majority voting that gave women the right to vote, removed segregation and created equal rights for all. It was a minority of people recognizing that this way of thinking was antiquated, crude and reprehensible.
The issue today is gay marriage and it falls in the same category as the above. Imagine looking back 50 years from now and seeing yourself on the complete wrong side of the debate. How stupid, and hopefully shameful, you'll feel.
BTW...I'm thankful the US is not a true democracy when I see what opinions the majority tend to hold. I am glad the leaders are not bound to do exactly as their constituents "want". As we as a human race advance in our thinking, some quicker than others, we need to shed the vestigial dogmas of our past...all of them.
Basic point #1: If forbidding people to marry others of the same sex is unkind, unjust, or whatever, then it doesn't become any less so when the person doing it says "my religion told me to do it".
Basic point #2: If forbidding people to marry others of the same sex is unkind, unjust, or whatever, then those who campaign against the prohibition don't need to -- and generally don't -- do it on the basis that the people on the other side are homophobes and bigots. This isn't about the character of the opponents of same-sex marriage, it's about their actions, and if your actions are unkind, unjust, etc., then once again they really don't become any less so merely because you're a nice person underneath.
a possible-majority among the American population (with the mainstream orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all teaching the same; and ~80+% of the U.S. self identifying as holding one of these faiths).
Please don't confuse calling oneself Christian (or anything else) to advocating their Church's beliefs. Where I live, the people who describe themselves as Catholics (which is obviously much more specific than Christian) are 95% for using contraception, and more than 50% are pro-choice in both pregnancy interruption and euthanasia.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've always found the notion of faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof) to seem hollow and meaningless compared to the joy of evidence, humility from understanding the size and time of the known universe, and the fortitude to accept that some questions have no answers.
At some point in the future, science will probably identify the origin of homosexuality. (Given its prevalence in nature, consistent trigger rates, and the seemingly smooth continuum between hetero and homo, it's likely to run deep within our genetic makeup.) So if physical evidence is found for homosexuality, should your faith reconsider what it means to be "made in god's image"?
If your view is that homosexuality is immoral, and you don't want homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals, then I'm afraid you are homophobic. You may be the best kind of homophobic, but homophobic none the less.
I'm not racist, but I don't think blacks should be able to marry. I just think they engage in behavior that's immoral, just like others of my friends who sleep with each other outside of marriage, etc. I have friends who are black. I'm not racist! I'd equally condemn anyone who insults, harasses, or otherwise harms someone just because that someone is black.
This is a pretty surprising move, at least to me. In Singapore it's not even legal to engage in homosexual sex, and there's no recognition of same-sex unions:
Pushing for gay marriage in a place where gays aren't even legally allowed to have sex is jumping right into the deep end. (I should clarify that the gay community here is nonetheless pretty active anyway, and there haven't been crackdowns in a long while. Homosexuality is pretty much tolerated as long as the sexual acts are kept private.)
All in all it's a strange move for a multinational corporation to make, considering how sociopolitical the issue is. Our government is very keen on having dynamic foreign firms set up shop here, but maybe not so keen once they take stances opposed to legislative policy. Google has established a big enough office (and datacenters) here to possibly not want to risk hurting relations (in my uninformed view).
I'd guess it's a hoax, taking all these factors into account, and the lack of an official press release.
Homosexual sex was illegal in some states as recently as 2003. Consodering the transformation in the USA since then, I don't think it's premature to start campaigning for marriage rights.
Laws aside, homosexuality is alive and well in Singapore. There are gay clubs, lady boys at Orchard Towers (government regulated prostitution), and I had a number of gay friends who certainly weren't fearful for their life (never bothered about their sexual preference).
I'm in favor of gay marriage, pet marriage, sibling marriage, and all sorts of other kinds of marriage that people tend to feel the need to ban.
However, I think it's absurd that the state is involved in marriage. Google's move, while perhaps pragmatic in nature, reveals a very strong sentiment legitimizing the state role in marriage, which is the basis for all the backwardness.
Only when the state becomes involves in things can politicians attempt to control what others do via the power of the state. I'd rather see Google encourage people to just "marry" each other with private vows and no license or other nonsense.
Private vows don't work so well when your bigoted inlaws decide you can't see your lover at the hospital. People have compiled lists of hundreds of privileges granted through marriage that are difficult-to-impossible to arrange any other enforceable way. We'd have to rewrite family law from scratch.
That said, I don't know that they are better at lobbying than anyone else their stockholders could give the money to, which would be the only reason they ought to involve the corporation.
The comments on the article are funny. People saying this is a reason people might switch to Google from Apple or from Google to Bing, then being reminded that all the tech companies support the LGBT community.
Call me cynical, but I wonder (A) what is the real motivation behind this, & (B) how seriously is this campaign going to be pursued in unfriendly terrain?
I suppose the Singapore test will be interesting as it is some homosexual acts are technically illegal but not generally enforced. Sounds like a good candidate for an easy win... but if it's ineffective there it will presumably be ineffective everywhere.
There's only one and single source reporting this news and everyone seems to be linking them without adding anything else. I don't know about others, but this seems suspicious.
EDIT: I am no anti-LGBT but saying above on principle.
A lot of people outside of Google don't take it's "Don't be evil" pledge seriously anymore but I know from talking to employees that it's still something Google cares deeply about. Most of the people in this thread seem to analyzing it from an amoral, self-interested business perspective and twisting facts and circumstances to justify that narrative. I think the far more parsimonious explanation is that Google felt like it couldn't sit on the sidelines of the gay marriage debate any longer and still uphold it's values.
If you find yourself thinking bad thoughts while watching this, stop yourself and try to empathise with those whom you so blithely speak against. It won't hurt and no-one has to know ;-)
How about a campaign to end world hunger, government transparency, proper SEC accounting, banks accountability, or real-time online voting for current issues and abolish congress.
So, what does a political campaign / stance mean for a search company? Would they skew search results to support a position? If I am their competitor, it seems like an opportunity for FUD, even if they are doing the right thing.
I'm interested in the legal effects of this. Singapore, for all of its prosperity and advances, isn't a democratic country. And I'm wondering what the EU would think about a multinational lobbying in one of their member states.
How about some fact checking prior to launching into an enflamed debate?
This seems a rather unlikely event, and the source provided doesn't look like a tremendously trustworthy news source. Where's the Google PR statement?
This might not relate, but I'd be interested to know how many of the people that think this is a good idea would also support Google were they to take a stance on something as charged as abortion?
I'm waiting for the crowd that got all upset over the rainbow oreo picture to start their outcry about this, they vowed to boycott oreos but i doubt they'd do the same with Google.
I'd much rather they campaigned to ban marriage for everyone. This is awful, it's bad enough as a government/legal institution without corporations weighing in.
[+] [-] mattmaroon|13 years ago|reply
I want companies to lobby only for the issues that are their immediate business (and I say that only because I know we'll never get laws banning lobbying at all) and let their shareholders privately endorse their beliefs. I see this as another example of corporate personhood.
Even though I have no sympathy for people who are opposed to gay marriage as private citizens, as Google shareholders I don't feel they should be forced with a choice between supporting their beliefs (however wrongheaded they may seem to me) and being a Google shareholder.
I also feel a little gross thinking about an American company preaching tolerance to Singapore. How about we get it fixed here before we start pressuring everyone else?
[+] [-] georgemcbay|13 years ago|reply
By lobbying to improve the lives of its employees, Google is improving Google. So as another heterosexual gay marriage hipster I disagree with you.
I also disagree with you that Google shareholders opposed to gay marriage shouldn't be forced to choose. They are just as wrong in their beliefs as those who supported segregation were or those who were against women's suffrage were. Marginalizing these people for their ridiculously antiquated beliefs is fair game, IMO.
[+] [-] einhverfr|13 years ago|reply
It's not that I am opposed to gay marriage. In fact as regards the US, I am for it. However.....
Marriage is deeply cultural. It means remarkably different things in different places. Something like 30% of Japanese marriages are still wholely arranged. Another 30-40% are at least partially arranged. Marriage is seen very much as a matter of extended families and so personal choice doesn't have as much to do with it as we see in the US. So suppose you legalize gay marriage? What then? Are you going to insist that the Japanese adopt our individualistic notions of marriage too?
It seems to me that the idea of marrying someone you want is a human right is nothing more than projecting our cultural preferences out to the rest of the world.
Fortunately cultural diversity is not threatened by recognizing new legal arrangements. Societies will find other ways of regulating norms, just as Japan has done following legal changes to marriage laws imperially imposed by the allies following WWII. So fortunately even if successful it will not have a major impact.
[+] [-] corin_|13 years ago|reply
As a supporter of gay marriage, think of it as a nice bonus.
[+] [-] eta_carinae|13 years ago|reply
But more than that, Google is philanthropic, humanist and a scientific activist. Don't invest in them if you are not comfortable with these ideals.
[+] [-] staunch|13 years ago|reply
I understand being upset about what your government does. You can't easily escape being part of that. Anyone who doesn't like what Google is doing is free to disassociate themselves in an instant.
[+] [-] tuxracer|13 years ago|reply
I want companies to lobby only for the issues that are their immediate business (and I say that only because I know we'll never get laws banning lobbying at all) and let their shareholders privately endorse their beliefs. I see this as another example of corporate personhood. Even though I have no sympathy for people who are opposed to negros as private citizens, as Google shareholders I don't feel they should be forced with a choice between supporting their beliefs (however wrongheaded they may seem to me) and being a Google shareholder. I also feel a little gross thinking about an American company preaching tolerance to Singapore. How about we get it fixed here before we start pressuring everyone else?
[+] [-] redwood|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zitterbewegung|13 years ago|reply
It will not change issues that are part of its immediate business.
Instead google will be seen by others as a champion of freedom. A good force. Something that isn't "evil".
Therefore, the purpose of this strategy is twofold One, is that you get something that helps out your employees. Two, you get to be seen in the world as a progressive force of change. By changing the public perception can do no wrong or that google is a champion of good is worth more. This is a marketing program that you do if you have billions to use.
So, you are right. There is no reason that this is relevant to its immediate business. It's a marketing ploy that has the side effect of championing civil rights. I'm not complaining I think its great!
[+] [-] naner|13 years ago|reply
I'd tend to agree but this isn't really about beliefs, it is about discrimination.
[+] [-] jrockway|13 years ago|reply
Corporations are evil and self-interested by default, but that's not necessarily a condition for being allowed to sell shares to the public.
[+] [-] donniezazen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rickmb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tichy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ams6110|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ThomPete|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ktizo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazoolist|13 years ago|reply
I'm a person of faith, who takes his faith seriously, and who's faith teaches that homosexual conduct is immoral. I think this puts me in a distinct minority among the HN community, but in a possible-majority among the American population (with the mainstream orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all teaching the same; and ~80+% of the U.S. self identifying as holding one of these faiths).
Given my faith, advocacy like this from Google, Apple, and other prominent tech companies really put me in a bind.
Their products have become such fixtures in my day to day life that I'm not sure how to get by without them, but by using their products and providing these companies with revenue, I feel like I'm contributing to a fund for someone to publicly proclaim: "You're faith is a sham; your God irrelevant; and, by the way, we think you are a vile, hateful, homophobic bigot".
I wish Apple, Google, etc. would all just focus on making insanely great products and not jump into the fray of divisive-by-definition social issues.
And, no, I'm not a "homophobe" or "bigot". I have friends who are gay; I don't hate them. I just think they engage in behavior that's immoral, just like others of my friends who sleep with each other outside of marriage, etc. I recognize my faith condemns such behavior - but I'd equally condemn anyone who insults, harasses, or otherwise harms someone just because that someone is gay.
[+] [-] potatolicious|13 years ago|reply
And how does that in any way conflict with the support of gay rights?
The legalization of gay marriage in no way denies your right to morally condemn their behavior. It simply removes your ability to actively harm their lives by continuously denying them equality.
You do not have to approve of someone's behavior in order to support their right to do it.
In other words, your very claim that you are not homophobic, and that you would readily come to the aid of persecuted gay folk, should mean that Google's move is not objectionable. After all, Google is not trying to ban browbeating, but merely to assert the right for people to do as they wish, moral or otherwise.
[+] [-] Tichy|13 years ago|reply
I find it surprising (but cool) that Google takes a stand on a controversial issue here.
Think about it another way: if Google doesn't take a stand on other human rights issues, there is a huge scandal. For example if they were to reveal information about Chinese activists to the Chinese government. So why shouldn't they be expected to take a stand regarding other human rights issues, too?
[+] [-] fingerprinter|13 years ago|reply
I'm an agnostic atheist. At some point in my past I identified as "christian". At no point did I think gay marriage should be illegal nor did I think that gays were immoral.
Further, civil rights, interracial marriage (mine, for instance) and various other issues were deemed "socially unacceptable" by the majority of people in the US at some point in time. It wasn't majority voting that gave women the right to vote, removed segregation and created equal rights for all. It was a minority of people recognizing that this way of thinking was antiquated, crude and reprehensible.
The issue today is gay marriage and it falls in the same category as the above. Imagine looking back 50 years from now and seeing yourself on the complete wrong side of the debate. How stupid, and hopefully shameful, you'll feel.
BTW...I'm thankful the US is not a true democracy when I see what opinions the majority tend to hold. I am glad the leaders are not bound to do exactly as their constituents "want". As we as a human race advance in our thinking, some quicker than others, we need to shed the vestigial dogmas of our past...all of them.
[+] [-] gjm11|13 years ago|reply
Basic point #1: If forbidding people to marry others of the same sex is unkind, unjust, or whatever, then it doesn't become any less so when the person doing it says "my religion told me to do it".
Basic point #2: If forbidding people to marry others of the same sex is unkind, unjust, or whatever, then those who campaign against the prohibition don't need to -- and generally don't -- do it on the basis that the people on the other side are homophobes and bigots. This isn't about the character of the opponents of same-sex marriage, it's about their actions, and if your actions are unkind, unjust, etc., then once again they really don't become any less so merely because you're a nice person underneath.
[+] [-] icebraining|13 years ago|reply
Please don't confuse calling oneself Christian (or anything else) to advocating their Church's beliefs. Where I live, the people who describe themselves as Catholics (which is obviously much more specific than Christian) are 95% for using contraception, and more than 50% are pro-choice in both pregnancy interruption and euthanasia.
[+] [-] sjwright|13 years ago|reply
At some point in the future, science will probably identify the origin of homosexuality. (Given its prevalence in nature, consistent trigger rates, and the seemingly smooth continuum between hetero and homo, it's likely to run deep within our genetic makeup.) So if physical evidence is found for homosexuality, should your faith reconsider what it means to be "made in god's image"?
[+] [-] corin_|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jules|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] creamyhorror|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_...
Pushing for gay marriage in a place where gays aren't even legally allowed to have sex is jumping right into the deep end. (I should clarify that the gay community here is nonetheless pretty active anyway, and there haven't been crackdowns in a long while. Homosexuality is pretty much tolerated as long as the sexual acts are kept private.)
All in all it's a strange move for a multinational corporation to make, considering how sociopolitical the issue is. Our government is very keen on having dynamic foreign firms set up shop here, but maybe not so keen once they take stances opposed to legislative policy. Google has established a big enough office (and datacenters) here to possibly not want to risk hurting relations (in my uninformed view).
I'd guess it's a hoax, taking all these factors into account, and the lack of an official press release.
[+] [-] paulgb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dlokshin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] grandalf|13 years ago|reply
However, I think it's absurd that the state is involved in marriage. Google's move, while perhaps pragmatic in nature, reveals a very strong sentiment legitimizing the state role in marriage, which is the basis for all the backwardness.
Only when the state becomes involves in things can politicians attempt to control what others do via the power of the state. I'd rather see Google encourage people to just "marry" each other with private vows and no license or other nonsense.
[+] [-] prodigal_erik|13 years ago|reply
That said, I don't know that they are better at lobbying than anyone else their stockholders could give the money to, which would be the only reason they ought to involve the corporation.
[+] [-] saraid216|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] staunch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taligent|13 years ago|reply
Also you know Tim Cook being gay and all.
[+] [-] blu3jack|13 years ago|reply
I suppose the Singapore test will be interesting as it is some homosexual acts are technically illegal but not generally enforced. Sounds like a good candidate for an easy win... but if it's ineffective there it will presumably be ineffective everywhere.
[+] [-] webwanderings|13 years ago|reply
EDIT: I am no anti-LGBT but saying above on principle.
[+] [-] cheez|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shalmanese|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danparsonson|13 years ago|reply
If you find yourself thinking bad thoughts while watching this, stop yourself and try to empathise with those whom you so blithely speak against. It won't hurt and no-one has to know ;-)
[+] [-] hmoghnie|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lstroud|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Apocryphon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vegas|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nhangen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TamDenholm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eliasmacpherson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gdilla|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drivebyacct2|13 years ago|reply
This might be a better source: http://dot429.com/articles/2012/07/06/google-wants-the-world...
[+] [-] gooddaysir|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]