Apple, Facebook, Google: Same-sex marriage 'a business imperative'

Apple, Facebook, Intel, Google, Oracle, Cisco, Verizon, eBay, and Qualcomm are among at least 60 top US companies that will file a brief with the US Supreme Court in support of the plaintiffs in a case that seeks to invalidate as unconstitutional laws banning same-sex marriages. "Recognizing the rights of same-sex couples to …

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing like trading in rights you could get yourself

so they're trading in the 2nd Amendment, you know, the one that keeps government from getting out of hand (like deciding who can and can't marry) to elect people who promise to give them something they could get on their own.

problem is, no one wants true marriage equality. true equality means nobody gets tax breaks because government is truly out of the bedroom. But the truth is, everyone wants more benefits, breaks, etc.

And will elect people who take more in order to "buy" those breaks.

short sighted and easily led.

[Franklin]

Re: nothing like trading in rights you could get yourself

Riiight. The Second Amendment prevents the government from getting out of hand, because the mere thought of Joe in his deerskin cap with his thirty-aught-six slung over his shoulders gives even the most battle-hardened American military commander the heebie-jeebies.

That's why the NRA has diligently protected our rights by weighing in so vigorously against SOPA and PIPA, and why they continue to work so hard to support the values of free speech and expression, oppose CISPA, and support people who promote the open sharing of knowledge...oh, wait.

[Rampant Spaniel]

Re: nothing like trading in rights you could get yourself

The armed militia clause is all but an excuse for the vast majority of people. There are a few loony toons out there who think they actually need arms for that and who also believe they could make a difference. For the vast majority of people it for person protection (in the home and outside the home) and for sport. Personally I agree with protection within the home and sport, outside the home it should be the police's job to keep the law, if they can't they are either under funded or incapable, or both.

The problem is politicians win on extremes, the shouts are ban all guns or arm to the teeth. What we end up with is usually something useless and inappropriate, but the battle cries are usually from the extremes which makes the other extreme even more extreme. Gun owners fear 'crazy liberals' taking away their home protection, which it would seem they do need to an extent, and their sport. Non gun owners just see 'crazy rednecks' firing 50cal aws into the air and hollering as they fly around in replica general lees hopped up on moonshine. The truth is both are wrong, there's a huge number of normal folks with genuine concerns on both sides, but they get lost in the media hype and the extreme views.

Gay marriage is a given, it needs to happen, Christianity has no ownership over the term marriage and many societies have existed just fine whilst giving equal recognition to same sex and other 'less western' partnerships. Trading one right for another is not the way to go. Two sensible solutions are needed.

1- Allow equal protection and entitlement to less conventional partnerships whilst protecting a religions right not to have to perform the ceremonies (and strip their tax breaks if they make that decision).

2- Allow reasonable gun ownership for home defense and sport with enforced controls over storage and types of weapon. Outside of the home and sport empower and require the police to do their damn job. In the short term it should be the polices job to ensure the vast majority of people do not feel the need to carry a gun outside their home and until we reach that point it's not fair to ask people to give up their weapons on the street. If you trade your right to individual protection (irrespective of whether it is safer or not) for civil protection, civil protection needs to deliver.

The problem being, very few people like or would admit to liking those kind of solutions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally a business should not care if you are married, single, gay, straight, bi or whatever. They should also not ask about your age, your religion or anything else. If you want to tell people then that's another matter.

So long as you aren't doing something illegal or that will serious conflict with your job or cause public outcry then what business is it of theirs?

Lets not forget some of the recent sex scandals caused by people who were seen as being charitable types.

[DavCrav]

"Personally a business should not care if you are married, single, gay, straight, bi or whatever. They should also not ask about your age, your religion or anything else. If you want to tell people then that's another matter."

Seriously? Did you miss the point of their argument by that much? What they said was: if a company is in a state that bans gay marriage, a gay person is less likely to come work for that company, thus harming their business. They want the best people, regardless of whether they are gay or not, and so would like these obstacles to free movement to be removed.

[Gordon 10]

Oh Come. On.

"What they said was: if a company is in a state that bans gay marriage, a gay person is less likely to come work for that company, thus harming their business. They want the best people, regardless of whether they are gay or not, and so would like these obstacles to free movement to be removed."

Really? Tenuous much? Im all for Gay Marriage but Im more for businesses staying the f*ck out of issues that involve personal choice & freedoms rather than making some spurious business reason to get them and their slush funds involved.

I'd like to see any one of these firms show the hiring stastics that back up their assertions.

[Swarthy]

Re: Oh Come. On.

Familial benefits as a business incentive is old hat. I am far more likely to work for a place that can offer medical insurance to my whole family than a place which will only extend insurance coverage to myself.

The Corps are not (in this case) encouraging/discouraging any personal choice; they just want the ability to recruit using all of their available toolkit. When you can't offer familial benefits to a sub-section of the population, that sub-set will go somewhere that will offer 'em. It seems to me that Google, Apple, etc. may (if the Supreme Court upholds Prop 8) give CA the ultimatum "Revoke Prop 8, or we're moving to a state that won't hamstring our recruiting".

[Anonymous Coward]

But look who they are up against...

Whilst I am normally against big corporations using their power to influence law/policy (yes I'm talking about you US media companies), in this instance the might is being used for the benefit of society (in my view) rather than the benefit of their investors, and I applaud them.

But they are up against people like 1 million moms (who are so anti-gay that their views would be deemed illegal in other civilised countries) - and who, it would seem, have the ability to scare the shit out of the US government for fear of offending the god botherers.

Hopefully the US gov will have the balls to say 'who's your daddy?' to the 1 million moms - (lots of puns intended).

[Oninoshiko]

Re: But look who they are up against...

Did you read the same article I did?

Apple, Google, et al are not opposed to Prop 8 because it will hurt society, they are opposed to it because it will hurt their investors.

Personally, I'm opposed to government involvement in marriages at all. They should not be involved beyond enforcing the terms of the contract joining two legal entities, overseeing the dissolution of said contracts. Something like a cross between a marriage license and a prenuptial agreement. If you need a name for these types of contracts, we can call them "Civil Unions." They would apply to heterosexual as well as homosexual couples.

[Malcolm Weir]

Re: But look who they are up against...

While your opposition to government involvement in marriage is rational, it's not going to go away because the very same people who oppose others getting what they have (e.g. "conservatives") will oppose removing "their" privilege.

So the choices are: allow any two people to join together for socio-legal purposes, or create arbitrary rules as to which pairings are allowed and which are not. We've already decided that prohibiting pairings based on skin color is not acceptable, so all we're left with is this bizarre fascination with what two other people do together, allegedly on the basis that one group's pairings is irredeemably harmed by a completely unrelated couple's choices.

[Eddy Ito]

Re: But look who they are up against...

It's not so much a privilege as it is keeping the bible banging votes on their side. The whole tax code is based around 1950s society where there is one income and a good do bee making the home all day. Some years ago I ran the numbers and the US tax code worked in the favor of married couples who had incomes where one spouse earned more than ~75% of the total and favored two unmarried people when the incomes were more even. As a result there are many cases of pairs of people who don't marry because the two salaries are near parity and it would easily push the combined income over the threshold into the next tax bracket. Note that this works on both ends of the spectrum even down to the point where one member of the couple is on public assistance but if they get married the assistance goes away while nothing is made more affordable by the union.

Of course if we were all treated equally in the eyes of the law most of what we did wouldn't matter because the corrupt institutions like the W.B. Church would be paying taxes like everyone else and its leader wouldn't make quite so much money thumping the bible in everyone's face. They'd be free to declare non-profit status provided they didn't mind audits to prove the fact but non-profit is likely against church policy.

[Frankee Llonnygog]

Re: But look who they are up against...

So, there would be two kinds of agreement: a Civil Union, which is enshrined in legislation and on which any tax breaks, family law, etc are based. And there'd be marriage: something which is part of your religion, if you have one, and has no legal recognition or status whatsoever.

I'm fine with that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: But look who they are up against...

"Something like a cross between a marriage license and a prenuptial agreement. If you need a name for these types of contracts, we can call them "Civil Unions." "

Why not use the long-established word for those legal contracts? Marriage.

That's what they were before the religions were involved. The cementing of alliances for political, tribal, or economic reasons. The higher echelons of society had big occasions and written legal contracts - the rest of society had custom folk rituals and at most a simple verbal contract.

In England the idea of ordinary people being married in a church ceremony was a relatively recent development. It is said that the architectural church porch was established as the only space where ordinary people could be married.

At first State Marriage it was only available to those of the Anglican faith - as Church and State were not separated. Then eventually anyone who wanted to be recognised as married by the State HAD to have an Anglican wedding ceremony - not matter what their actual faith.

In 1867 Civil Marriage Registration was instituted - effectively separating Church and State for marriage. Unfortunately - they did not repeal the condition that an Anglican church "must" marry anyone from their parish. This anomaly has led to some of the recent legal convolutions for the "quadruple lock" protection of religious conscience for the Church of England and Church in Wales.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Did you read the same article I did?

Yes, I did. The difference is that I don't really believe that Google, et al really believe there is a massive business impact - I believe they are saying this to sway the government into making the right decision (i.e turn what is a moral/ethical/discrimination issue into a business case). It is a tactic used throughout business, and I myself have used this very tactic to encourage organisations to 'do the right thing' - i.e. create a business case rather than pursue a change on moral grounds - it is far more effective.

Whichever is the truth I still support their stance on this matter, which is the important thing.

[Old Handle]

Re: Did you read the same article I did?

The real real reason they're doing it is that they believe (probably correctly) that public opinion is now on the pro same-sex marriage side, and that by taking that side they can rack up a few good will points at no particular cost. Perhaps enough to offset the next egregious privacy invasion they perpetrate.

[Euripides Pants]

Re: But look who they are up against...

I don't mind gay monogamus couples getting the same perks from the state that straight married couples get but the Supreme Court should not consider "business imperatives" when deciding matters of law.

[Malcolm Weir]

Re: But look who they are up against...

Of course they should. Pretending otherwise is naive and stupid. Naturally, they shouldn't let business imperatives dictate their conclusions, but they have a duty to consider the social and economic consequences of any decision they make.

Despite many "conservative" pundit's assertions, judges have always had the job of both deciding the law and the remedy -- the biblical Solomon is seen to be doing this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it is time for the government to step aside from the entire question of "marriage" other than to provide a public registry for personal partnership agreements, including a selection of standard form agreements to cover the common use cases, but allowing custom agreements so long as they are voluntary and don't specify duties harmful to any of the partners. Defining "marriage" for religious purposes can best be left to the various and varied religious authorities. It is interesting to note that the arguments in support of gay marriage could pretty much be used, with few changes or none, to support plural marriage of all kinds.. And as AC(#1)@23:24 implied, getting the government out of the business of defining marriage ought to mean that partners don't get either benefits or punishments from it - same taxes for aggregate income as for the partners individually; no tax inducement for owning a home over renting; no tax incentive to have (or not have) children; no differential in employer contributions to such things as health insurance.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Defining "marriage" for religious purposes can best be left to the various and varied religious authorities. "

In many European countries that is already what happens. The Churches are legally allowed to exercise their dogma marriage proscriptions to discriminate eg against divorcees or those considered "barren".

That is not an "equality" problem for the ECHR - as long as the Civil Marriage of the State confers equal civil rights and status for everyone.

France has it very clearly separated. The State only recognises a legal marriage if it is performed in a designated civil office. Any religious ceremony is non-binding and must be performed elsewhere.

In the UK a civil marriage registration is also the only one recognised by the State. Unfortunately religions have been allowed to combine that essential civil registration with their religious ceremony. This allows the religions' hierarchies to spin that it is only the religious ceremony that effects legality. They are clinging to past glories - when the Church, for a short while in UK history, was primarily an organisation exercising State control. That ended in at least 1867 when Civil Registration was effected - removing the requirement that everyone, irrespective of any faith, could only be married in an Anglican church.

[Gil Grissum]

Really

Why is it that the whole gay thing seems to be so popular in America? Is this as popular in the UK and Europe. From what I've heard, it's a "don't ask/don't tell" type of thing in the Arab world. Maybe that's what they hate so much about the American "infidels"?

[Graham Marsden]

Re: Really

" From what I've heard, it's a "don't ask/don't tell" type of thing in the Arab world."

No, it's more a case of "Don't ask/ don't get assaulted, flogged, stoned or murdered" type of thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Really

"" From what I've heard, it's a "don't ask/don't tell" type of thing in the Arab world.""

It appears that the spirit of any biblical ban can be taken as against "man loving man". Apparently in parts of Afghanistan this is taken as allowing physical relations - as that is not emotional "love".

In some cultures the word "man" is approached with a different sophistry. A "man" is defined as a male who has reached the physical maturity of being able to grow a strong beard. Understanding that distinction can explain apparent cultural paradoxes sometimes encapsulated as "women for breeding - boys for pleasure".

[Malcolm Weir]

Re: Really

Gil Grissum, you are a disgusting bigot.

In Sudan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE (for a start) it's a "don't tell because they will execute you if you do" thing.

Given that homosexuality is recognized by real scientists as an inherent (rather than learned) trait, this amounts to exactly the same thing as executing (say) left handed people for being left handed.

[figure 11]

Re: Really

Has happened. Left handedness has been punished severely in the past.

[Swarthy]

Re: Really

In the past?! Left-handedness is punished daily! Every time a lefty walks through a door that's built the wrong way 'round, it's like water torture. Little thingd that add up over time.

No wonder lefties are somewhat craked,

[Anonymous Coward]

Equality?

One thing that has always puzzled me about this debate is why when the pro-gay marraige camp claim it is a matter of equality it isn't challenged. Gays have marriage equality - they always have. The rules on marriage are exactly the same for everyone - you can be married to one individual at any one time and that person must be of the opposite sex. Straight or gay, if you follow those conditions you can get married.

This isn't about equality, it's about preferential treatment. Gays see married heterosexual couples who have followed the conditions to be legally married. They want the marriage but don't want those strings, so demand they are removed caliming it as a natural right as opposed to simple self interest. Following that whim does diminish the significance of marriages made under the existing conditions and in that way takes from those already married.

As for attracting a strong workforce, great! There's all kinds of factors that affect where people want to live. Property prices, crime rates, transport, natural environment, taxation, schools and hospitals or whatever. Are these companies mounting similar campaigns based on these issues? It seems most of them would love to e.g. double their employee's tax bills if it saved them a few bucks in compensation.

[Rampant Spaniel]

Re: Equality?

It basically comes down to the fact that marriage is defined along very strict lines by a certain group of religions who have applied their criteria to marriage. This was less of an issue in the past when cultures were separated more, these days you are likely to live among a lot of different cultures with different ideas and values.

The state (in both the federal and local sense) and many other countries governments provide real fiscal benefits to people whose lifestyle falls within a specific religious definition. Some people are born with attributes that preclude them from from qualifying for these benefits. However, they may be from a culture which acknowledges and doesn't discriminate against them but live in a culture which does.

Marriage equality isn't about not having the same rules apply, it is about having the rules changed to acknowledge a wider range of circumstances.

Polygamy is widespread in the world, many religions formally accept and acknowledge it, some even cope with polyandry. There are plenty of cultures (and even religions) which accept same sex marriages and cope fine with transgender relationships. However, Christianity seems to view it as the greatest threat to their existence since Satan. The cynic in me wonders if it isn't just a rallying cry to bandy the troops together and stop them becoming complacent about their devotion.

[Frankee Llonnygog]

Re: Equality?

Apparently one of the stumbling blocks to legalising gay marriage was the need to define consummation. I'd love to read the minutes of those meetings.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Equality?

"Apparently one of the stumbling blocks to legalising gay marriage was the need to define consummation."

Before UK civil divorce became liberalised "consummation" was a major reason for a marriage being dissolved by being annulled. The Roman Catholic Church, and to a lesser extent, the CofE - do not recognise a re-marriage of divorcees. So to satisfy that dogma required an annullment - and "consummation" is an important religious shibboleth.

In modern practice "consummation" is only one of many possible "incompatibilities" that are reasonable grounds for a couple obtaining a civil divorce. Trying to define "consummation" for same sex marriage is akin to debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin - irrelevant to the modern world.

[JimmyPage]

Re: Consumation

wasn't failure to address the definition of consumation one of the reasons why they also had to remove adultery as grounds for divorce ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Equality?

Marriage was not one of the Catholic sacraments for over a thousand years.

[Frankee Llonnygog]

Re: Equality?

"Trying to define "consummation" for same sex marriage is akin to debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin - irrelevant to the modern world."

Agreed. Nevertheless, they tried.

[HCV]

Re: Equality?

Ah, very much like Anatole France, then:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

[J 3]

Re: Equality?

To say in a much less nice way that Rampant Spaniel... AC, are you really that stupid or do you just play one on Internet forums? Gee...

[Vladimir Plouzhnikov]

Re: Equality?

"Gays have marriage equality - they always have. The rules on marriage are exactly the same for everyone - you can be married to one individual at any one time and that person must be of the opposite sex. Straight or gay, if you follow those conditions you can get married."

You sure you understand the meaning of the word "gay"? Or are you suggesting that if two gay people want to be in a legally recognised relationship they should each find and marry third persons of opposite gender? That means "equality" in your understanding?

Or is it the case of "everybody is free to marry, just don't be gay"?

[Scott L. Burson]

Re: Equality?

So for you, then, marriage is just a business transaction. Marrying the person you're in love with and want to spend your life with doesn't enter into it.

You are either permanently single or in a miserable, loveless marriage.

If I'm wrong, then you have no heart, because you're unwilling to allow others the same joy you have found.

[Old Handle]

Re: Equality?

What puzzles me even more is why anti-gay marriage people make this argument and then claim that same sex couples want preferential treatment, even though their own argument refutes this. Straight people wold be allowed to enter same-sex marriages too.

[Malcolm Weir]

Re: Equality?

What a fool! Marriage is blind to every characteristic (height, age-above-a-minimum, skin color, intelligence) save one (gender). What rational basis is there for including that one but not any of the others?

Quite.

[Alan W. Rateliff, II]

Gays getting married isn't the issue in gay marriage...

I like the term "marriage equality" as a tactical shift in vocabulary. Though it still misses the point of the real issue at hand, which is not gay marriage.

The real problem is a long-standing and traditionally religious institution was co-opted by law. I am not certain when this actually happened, but the result is plainly clear: marriage has become a legal shortcut. Marriage became the legal answer in the questions of taxes and tax relief, custody, medical decisions, benefit coverage and receipt, retirement and pension compensation, and so on. As a result, two individuals who do not want to get married for myriad reasons or are not traditionally (in the religious sense) recognized as being qualified to marry are denied the "rights" granted by law to married couples.

If the legal shortcut of marriage is removed, suddenly the issue ceases to exist. Suddenly the decision of providing benefits, medical surrogate authority, tax benefits, and others must be brought in-house and decided more on a case-by-case basis instead of a one-size-fits-all singular definition. Of course, doing so means policies and practices, paperwork, legal assistance, and eventually regulation for equal protection under the law.

While the legal shortcut remains, eliminating prohibitions on gay marriage still leaves a growing portion of the population in the lurch, including young "modern" couples who believe a commitment is stronger than the easily-bantied-about institution of marriage, or the elderly who have had their marriage (or marriages) and while they seek a final life companion would rather not go through the rigamarole marriage entails, and other committed couples with their own private reasons. Fixing the underlying legal perspective address everyone.

Paris, ignoring the issue but it won't go away.

[Rampant Spaniel]

Re: Gays getting married isn't the issue in gay marriage...

A religious institution co-opted by law? Sure the other way around no? Marriage was a legal institution to do with retaining and accumulating property and money that was co-opted by religions?

[unwarranted triumphalism]

Re: Gays getting married isn't the issue in gay marriage...

'Co-opted'...? In the same way that Xmas was a Christian festival co-opted by pagans to celebrate the Winter Solstice, yes.

[J 3]

The smart ones jumping ship already

"Whitman, Californians and others might remember, supported the implementation of Proposition 8 when she ran for governor of that state in 2010 – but she has now changed her mind."

Ah, what a whipping at the polls does not do for one's conscience... First, Republicans for immigration reform, now this?

[Anonymous Coward]

About Investing, not Investors

This is about money, not rights. These companies are trying to stay on the "good" lists of socially-conscious investment groups. Homosexuality affects less than 2% of the population, (and is IMHO not inherent but self-taught, but that's another thread) so it's not about getting people into a company, but about getting money into a company.

There is no right to marry in the USA. Never has been. Marriage is a religious and government-extended privilege to certain individuals who fit a particular model of behavior that is seen as "better" than other models for the benefits obtained by both society (government reason to control), and personal relationship with God (religious reason for control). No one can deny that the current model of one man-one woman in a monogamous relationship clearly has been the most successful model for the past several thousand years. The benefits of having a man and woman obligated only to each other far outweigh the "feel-good" movement allowing homosexuals the same privilege.

The problem I have with the pro-homosexual marriage crowd, is that their argument revolves around "love", and not the tangible benefits that society or their personal relationship with God would be reaped by such a union. "Love" is NOT the reason marriage is authorized. Love is the cornerstone to making a marriage work, but it is not why religion and government authorize it. Heterosexual, monogamous marriage brings enough benefits to society (stable relationship for raising children, increased safety of the female and her offspring, a framework for moral behavior that benefits society, etc) that it is authorized and encouraged through a variety of benefits. Opening up the definition of marriage does not, IMHO, provide those same benefits to either society or ones's personal relationship with God. This expanded definition will, in the long run, be harmful to society.

[Rattus Rattus]

Re: About Investing, not Investors

So do you believe infertile couples should be denied marriage? If a couple remains childless, should their marriage be invalidated? Should the elderly likewise be denied any possibility of marriage?

Also, with regard to your assertion that marriage offers "a framework for moral behavior that benefits society" - Fuck off. Seriously, you can fuck right off with that bullshit.

[Richard 12]

Re: About Investing, not Investors

It's telling that you only feel able to post your ill-informed bigotry completely anonymously.

It would appear you don't even believe your post enough to associate your long-term (semi-anon) handle with it, which doesn't sound like someone with a genuine religious conviction.

You don't believe, you just hate those different to you, and last time I checked, Jesus didn't say to hate your neighbours.

By your definitions, childless couples and disabled husbands are just as bad as gay marriage, as neither provide the benefits you claim marriage is for.

Do you agree with that statement? Would you deny a paraplegic fiancé the right to marry?

Marriage is a public declaration that two people love each other, intend to devote the rest of their lives to each other and remain faithful to each other, regardless of changing circumstances.

That is valid for any two people.

[P. Lee]

Re: About Investing, not Investors

> That is valid for any two people.

But why restrict it to two people. Is there a logical reason not to allow polygamy?

Indeed, why restrict it to just to people? If I'm committed to my dog and the affection is clearly mutual, why should dog-lovers be excluded?

Just because people disagree doesn't mean they hate each other. I would strongly oppose the freedom of my 8 year old to carry a loaded weapon, even if she wanted to. I'd oppose letting my neighbours carry guns too. That doesn't mean I hate them.

I have to agree with the poster who suggested that this is gesture politics on behalf of the corporates and politicians who entertain them. Even if the corporates did have issues recruiting gays, its a zero sum game. HP's failure to attract gays to Texas is Apple's benefit in California. What about those who love guns? Is it a "business imperative" to harmonise gun law because companies in some states can't attract gun-nuts?

Regardless of the whether its gesture politics or not, it isn't right that corporates exert influence for "good" or "evil" on politics. It is the people who should decide. We are talking about trying to over-ride the democratic institution of State government. I believe competition between legislative jurisdictions is better than having one system of government which may turn against me in the future. It is the same reason we have countries rather than one world government. Should we over-ride democracy just because we think we are right? How many dictators have had that attitude?

Appealing to Jesus is a non-starter. He wasn't John Lennon, saying, "all we need is love." Adultery is condemned regardless of the "love." Jesus claimed to be God and Genesis is quite clear about the nature and purpose of marriage - men are inadequate to complete God's work on their own, women likewise. They are designed them to work together.

As usual, the issue isn't really, "what are you allowed to do," but, "what sort of morality are you going to force-feed my children in school." Spotting the irony is left as an exercise to the reader.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: About Investing, not Investors

" If I'm committed to my dog and the affection is clearly mutual, why should dog-lovers be excluded?"

Godwin's law variant? That argument is so discredited in the sex/marriage debates that it automatically invalidates any other points the author is trying to make. The reason is simple - "consent".

The appeal to the Old Testament is suspect. The Christian Church originating in Rome rejected the prescriptions and proscriptions of the Old Testament. It was a matter of principle to distinguish themselves from the dogmatic practices of Judaism. So they deliberately cut their hair, shaved their beards, were not circumcised - and ate pork and shellfish. Apparently they also approved of same-sex couples in the Roman fashion.

[Old Handle]

Re: About Investing, not Investors

The main barrier to polygamy is sorting out the legal ramifications. The system was designed for two people, so it can easily be extended to any two people. Just cross out "husband" and "wife" on the form and write "partner 1" and "partner 2". Done. Add more people and it gets confusing. Dealing with child custody and splitting property after a three-way divorce sounds particularly nightmarish. As for your dog, I'll support you when you can prove it understands what it's agreeing to when it says "rye roo!" One could argue that animals which mate for life do inherently understand, but these are mostly birds, so I don't think too many people would be interested.

[Rampant Spaniel]

Re: About Investing, not Investors

'opening up the definition of marriage' - heres my problem with the holy hand grenade crew, the Christian church did not invent marriage. People were getting married (men to men, men to women, women to women) before Jesus was a twinkle in poppa's eye. Many religions and societies have had a wider definition of marriage for a very long time.

When you remove the firewall between religion and government (or don't have one to begin with) you run the risk of being outbred, out voted and marginalised by another religion. Keep the church out of the state, the state out of the church and everyones way of life is protected for themselves. Start enforcing your narrow view on other people and you run the risk of finding the tables turned in time.

[Stacy]

Why?

So because people are campaigning for the equal rights around marriage the only best way forward is to ban it for everyone?

That's like a child smashing something up because they have been told to share! If I can't have it exclusively, then no one can have it!

What I do think is that it should be completely separated from the church. Everyone should have to get married in a civil marriage ceremony to make them married in the eyes of the law. Should some people also wish to be married in the eyes of their religion then they are free to have a purely religious ceremony after the civil one.

It's the way that it works in The Netherlands, and I think it's a very good system. Complete separation of church and state on the issue. If the churches with to say no to people for their religious ceremony then that is their call - it has no impact on non-religious people any more.

[Stacy]

Re: Why?

You post stated:

I'm all for equal opportunities, but only in the most minimum fashion possible. Therefore, nobody gets married. Everybody wins.

Equality for all.

I don't see that as a everyone wins situation, I see that as a very unhappy dystopian future that George Orwell warned against in 'Animal Farm' and '1984' where everyone loses.

[redhunter]

Marriage will always be discriminatory even if you allow gay marriage. If marriage is statutory, it will be defined and being defined it will draw a circle around those that can be married and those that can't. Gay marriage simply expands the "circle of love" so to speak, but it doesn't make it "fair", "equitable", or "non discriminatory".

[Scott L. Burson]

Sorry Meg, not buying it

"I supported Proposition 8. At the time, I believed the people of California had weighed in on this question and that overturning the will of the people was the wrong approach."

So you're saying that the majority does have the right to discriminate against the minority, just because they can? I'd say you still don't get it. If you had said "I supported Prop. 8 because I had not yet examined my own beliefs, and I was wrong" then I would applaud your sincere conversion.