Alan Ashton kept a low profile during his days as part of the triumvirate running WordPerfect. But he dug into his deep pockets to help decide a highly charged vote in California on November 4.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. A graduate of Queens College and Columbia University, Cooper received the Excellence in Journalism award from the Northern California branch of the Society for Professional Journalists for column writing.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Sure, you could do very well without such a mindset, but society as dictated by Mormons or orthodox Jews would quickly shoot itself in the foot by limiting the production and consumption of many of its members. The free market is only free when people are free.
So the gays can't marry. If they were a smaller group with less public support they would move away and make do elsewhere, like Jews during the Inquisition. They had 48% of the vote on their side, though...they'll stick it out and reverse this stupidity. It's simple really: When gays are oppressed, the lives of those miserable self-righteous people who hate them don't actually get any better, and the next time the vote comes round they can't get quite so worked up.
Stop scapegoating, people.
(This guy's view are as obsolute as his program)
God is punishing us, look at the number disasters in the last 100 years.
if you dont like the message shoot the messenger!
And what opinion does this give me as a reader besides an assumption that the 1 million dollars in Prop 8 is more important than Word Perfect?
Straight Americans for gay rights!
PS: thanks for the interesting story and further evidence of the need for campaign finance reform.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm a software engineer in Cupertino (and a damn good one!) and I voted for Prop 8. I'm neither Mormon nor very religious, and I have nothing against gays personally. But personally, I don't feel society has the same compelling reason to promote/license/sanction same-sex partnerships as it does for opposite-gender unions, for the simple reason that only men and women can have babies together. If a majority of CA voters had disagreed with me, I could live with it (we do live in a democracy, after all). Unfortunately, the losing side is displaying no intention of accepting the voters' decision.
52% in 2008
What are people complaining about? Justice will be served eventually. If anything, I'm kinda excited to be witnessing a new civil rights movement.
America has had that amazing document known as the Constitution:
?All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.?
- 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1
I am honored that I am witnessing the gradual enforcement of that constitution. And I applaud anyone that took action today in their right to assembly. Keep up the good fight. The old bigots are dying out and the NeoCons are becoming more irrelevant every day. Justice, however, is gaining ground.
> 52% in 2008
Sorry to break it to you, but it wasn't the same vote. The vote in 2004 was simply asking people if gay marriage should be legal, and 60% voted no. In 2008, a vote for yes meant amending the constitution, which sounds (and is) more severe. The second and more serious measure was only necessary because a few judges decided to ignore the original vote, making a constitutional change the only remedy. So it's much more likely that 8% of the population disagree with same-gender marriage privileges but balked at amending the constitution, than it is that so many people changed their viewpoint in such a short time period.
As for the US Constitution, it doesn't define marriage as either a right or a privilege, so it's anyone's guess what the founding fathers would have thought about the issue were they with us today. The fact is, same-sex domestic partners in CA already have the same rights and privileges (economically, medically, etc.) as marrieds, so their rights aren't being infringed in any way. The only thing that changing the definition of marriage would do is to change the traditional view of marriage that's been held since the beginnings of civilization (democratic or otherwise). I'd rather that decision be left up to the citizens and not a handful of judges.
LDS is currently under investigation for allegedly violating these rules during the Prop. 8 campaign. Direct campaign contributions are not the only form of political lobbying.
This is an IRS rule which is not part of any state or US constitutional article or amendment. The US constitutional first amendment actually directs "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It would be a violation of "abridging the freedom of speech" clause of the first amendment to prohibit people from expressing there stance or view on an issue.
The question is not whether the church or anyone else has a right to free expression. The question is whether these organizations have abused their tax-exempt status by unduly and inappropriately attempting to influence legislation. You can talk about how much you hate the idea of gay marriage all you want, but that is quite a different thing than lobbying to ban it or to change the constitution of our state to suit your opinion.
And please let's not get started on constitutional law lest I begin citing the pre-prop 8 CA constitution or the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It's unfortunate that the large angry mob of homophobes decided to get out their electoral pitchforks just because they don't like that the constitution doesn't conform to their religious dogma.
But hey, the homophobes, pedophiles and polygamists got their way this time. Bravo. Slow hand-clap for you all. You must be very proud of yourselves in your small, empty hearts. Let's hope you don't have a gay son or daughter who wants to know why you don't think they should be afforded the same civil protections under the law that you enjoy. God must have forbidden you allow gays to marry because that would make it harder for you to stereotype them as deviant pagan sodomites who want to corrupt your children.
"Marriage is a civil contract. You might as well make a law to say how many children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have. It would be as sensible to make a law to say how many horses or oxen he shall possess, or how many cows his wife shall milk." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 11:268-9
- by ikramerica--2008 November 15, 2008 7:25 PM PST
- What's interesting is that watching the ads for both sides, the Pro-8 ads were basically based on two things: personal beliefs, and the agenda of the "other side" to force things on us.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by amigosito November 15, 2008 8:29 PM PST
- Do you seriously believe that those four judges are part of some big gay conspiracy to force your children to learn about gay marriage? You sound like a paranoid schizophrenic. And by the way have you heard of a little court case called "Brown v. Board of Education?" I suppose you think the courts "forced" desegregation on those poor good ole' boys down south, eh?
- Like this
-
Showing 2 of 7 pages (271 Comments)The Anti-8 ads were based on two things: LIES about their agenda and about what rights already exist, and trying to shame us into thinking having things forced on us by courts is "equality." (no matter what your beliefs, denying FUNDAMENTAL rights is wrong. Of course, who's defining "fundamental" here.)
Every person in California has ALWAYS had the right to get married to somebody. Somebody of the opposite sex. Gay or straight, this you can do. No right has ever been denied a gay person to marry a person of the opposite sex, ever. You also have the right to form a civil partnership with anyone you choose, granting all the rights you want to them through various wills and legal documents. It's just not a marriage. You can do this with a person of the opposite sex if you choose to. You have also had the right to be "married" by any ordained person you choose, just not having that marriage legally recognized as such. Many churches won't do it without a marriage license or on religious grounds, but many will.
Thus, the right exists to get married, and to have a legal union, so no rights are being denied.
So why the "gay marriage" initiatives out there? Why do the advocate judges try to force something? It's about children: indoctrination and guardianship. Schools must teach about gay marriage (if you want to teach about sex education at all, you must teach about gay marriage), and the courts would be required to grant custody to gay parents, even gay STEP parents in some cases, taking rights away from biological parents in the process.
And it is also meant to usurp religions. After all, if your religion denies the right to marry to gays, they are in violation of the constitution, according to these advocate judges. Sure, it's nowhere in the constitution, but so what? If there is an opportunity to force their will on religions, they will do so.
And that is why the Mormon church is made out to be the bad guy here. How DARE a religion, with a large following in CALIFORNIA, try to protect their right to practice as they see fit? It is an effort by the church to protect THEIR right of free practice of religion without government interference, a right that is granted by the US constitution and is constantly trampled on by state and federal advocate judges.