Comments on: Apple to oppose anti-gay marriage ballot question

The company will donate $100,000 to the No on Prop 8 campaign, which opposes a California ballot initiative that would bar same-sex couples from marrying.

[Galaxy5]

Good for Apple. Discrimination should not be codified in the state's constitution.

[Renegade Knight]

Of course it should be. Animals and the dead can't vote for example. You are merely partial to what kinds of discrimination you want the state to practice.

[pjhenry1216]

animals and the dead aren't considered people. we're talking about discrimination to different peoples.

[chrisfrary]

Although this is a good reason, should companies really be speaking out against and for political issues?

[Renegade Knight]

I think you hit the crux of the matter.
Companies can advocate for legal issues that impact their bottom line (thought politicans should worry about voters more than companies). When they start taking on moral issues they create problems. What's the official Apple stand on Right to life? Abortion? Does Apple believe in the death penalty? Which side are they funding on those? When you buy an apple what politics are you buying into? All of those things start becoming part of the product you buy.

Companies should focus on giving back to the community and the people who buy their products. 100k to Cancer research would be nice. Most all of us can support that. It's not like they have cured cancer yet.

[pjhenry1216]

Why shouldn't companies speak out? You don't give any reasons why not. They already said their company specifically gave rights to employees in same sex relationships. Why shouldn't a company look out for their employees? And moreover, why can't a company do this from a PR standpoint? Companies have images they try to maintain. Apple ESPECIALLY relies on its image. I think this is in tune with their image and have no issue with it.

[Dana Kincaid]

Should companies speak out on moral issues?

Why not? Televangelists do, and they have as much right to speak on behalf of a god as an ten-penny nail does.

I'm gay/bi (GLBT) and I think that anyone should, as long as children are not hurt by creeps and cretins and dirty old farts, be allowed to marry. Adults should be able to marry whom they love. Nuts to the LDS church, nuts to the Southern Baptists, and most especially, nuts to the party that Karl Rove built.

[immunetologic]

It's a private company, remember? They fully within their rights to take a public stance on any issue. If you own their stock and think that action will have a negative effect on their bottom line, feel free to vote based on that and dump the stock. Also, please keep in mind that companies across the board donate to political causes and candidates. Here's a good place to look up how they invest their political dollars: opensecrets.org

Gene

[darkfireMN]

Equal rights.. yea, they should! Seems kind of duh to me. Its too bad they have to in the first place.. It's almost 2009.. Pass full equal rights for everyone, plain and simple, and move on to other issues.

[camp88]

Imagine if this were a question of people of one color or ethnicity being able to marry people of another color or ethnicity, would it be right for companies to take part in that dialogue?

In other words, this is a matter of civil rights that transcends politics, just as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and personal privacy are matters of civil rights.

All corporations, individuals, and organizations should speak out on matters of civil rights when they are being threatened.

[the Otter]

This is a shame. I?ve been using Apple computers for twenty-seven years, but I?m really going to have to rethink my position after this stunt. Proposition 8 is designed to give the power back to the people instead of individuals that legislate from the bench. It?s not about discriminating against individuals; it?s about upholding the Constitutional rights of the very individuals it claims to protect!

This is one idea that really should have gotten Steved.

[gerbache]

It would seem to me that the mere fact that there is a vote on prop 8 is "giving the power back." I'm not too sure how you can claim that taking away the right to marry is in any way giving rights back to anyone.

[close5828]

OMG. You're gonna stop buying their computers b/c you disagree with them on a politlcal opinion? The hubris of people like you is astounding.

[Understarsidream]

What's interesting about your comment is if this was 40-50 years ago you would be making the same argument but for interracial marriage. People forget it was against the law to for different races to marry (mostly african americans and white).

It's also not and issue that went before the "people" - it was decided by "activist" judges.

[craigar]

Yes, I too will take a second thought about my Apple purchases knowing that part of MY money will now be supporting issues that I am totally on the other side of the fence of. Apple's choice to Advertise on their home page just goes to show you that they have BALLS (however they choose to use them) and are willing to take the chance. Most likely it won't effect them at all, but don't be surprised by the ramifications of their choice. They have opened up a can of worms that will effect their reputation among a large constituency. Those who are not APPLE fans (future switchers) may never switch because of this. Others, it will have no baring with.

[renGek]

Well I have news for you. There is a very good reason why apple takes this stand. For one thing, their HQ is in northern california where there is a significant gay population and they employ many in the gay community. Which means the products that you have been using for the last 27 years is built with the help of the gay community.

[pjhenry1216]

I have no problem with Google or Apple trying to protect the rights of individuals. If people don't want to buy from a company that refuses to discriminate, thats their problem and I'm sure Google and Apple don't mind losing those kinds of customers.

[bwvla]

This is not about if you think being gay is right or wrong, its about if you think freedom is right or wrong. American and California were built on the concept of live and let live, its our greatest stregnth. Its ok if you don't like gay people, but let them be.

Personally I don't like certain sub groups that live in CA, but I let them be as its not my place to tell them how to marry, worship, or live. Its live and let live.

By legalizing the discrimination against classes of people we reduce ourselves to the mentality of middle eastern countries where discrimination, tyranny, and wars over selfish ideals are rampant. The intolerant laws of such countries are a downgrade, not an upgrade.

I do not feel the bench "legislated" in this case, the justices just re-affirmed the live and let live freedoms granted to all citizens of CA but which are sometimes overlooked in practice when we as a people become intolerant and unforgiving.

[Kinowolf]

Civil Rights have never been decided by referendum, it's always an issue for the courts and legislature. Why? Because the majority, if asked, will NEVER give rights to the minority. It's basically human psychology. People irrationally feel that giving someone else rights threatens their own, even though it obviously does not. Whites haven't lost rights after the full enfranchisement of Blacks, Latinos, and Asians (people forget that Asians were lumped in with a lot of Jim Crow laws). Monoracial marriages haven't been threatened by interracial marriages.

The only right one loses is the right to discriminate, which was never a right you should have been given in the first place.

[Dana Kincaid]

Oh go and change your armor, Brave Sir Robin. I'm sure that the (FAIL) example of your sort boycotting McDees and Ford (FAIL) will give us all a good laugh when your (FAIL) boycott of Apple makes you a laughing stock.

NO to discrimination! NO to the ant-gay fundies. Yes to gay marriage!

[jennidianne]

Proposition 8 is ALL ABOUT discrimination against a specific part of Californians just because they don't hold the same RELIGIOUS VIEW you do. It is ALL ABOUT codifiying the right to discriminate against homosexuals just because they don't fit into the mold of the church's interpretation of the Bible. Proposition 8 is NOT about protecting traditional marriage. If it fails to pass, what, all of a sudden men and women will not be able to marry? What exactly does traditional marriage need protecting from? I think I need to remind you that homosexual couples CAN adopt, CAN raise children, and right now they CAN marry. BUT if you enact this ban of yours, they will not be entitled to the same benefits as other married couples. Do you really hate these people that do you no harm so much that you would strip away their civil rights just to please your religious views?

[Mr. Dee]

And Microsoft what is your say? If big Company's like Apple and Google or are defining forces in the IT sector can be making this decision, I think you too can do it. What Microsoft fears is that pastor who was planning to have employees who are members of his congregation boycott Microsoft. But, if those employees and customers do boycott MS, who are they gonna go to? Linux which I believe have the same views on sexuality like Apple and Google. Anyway, losing a few thousand employees will be good for business in this rough economic time and losing a few million customers to Microsoft is like stepping on an ant. I think religion interfering in something like the right to be with the one you love is taking it too far.

[the Otter]

I think you?re missing the point here, Mr. Dee. No one?s trying to ?interfer[e] with the right to be with the one you love?; they?re trying to keep judges from overriding the will of the people by redefining any word they choose and using their definition to codifying anti-Constitutional laws. Proposition 8 will *give* rights to homosexuals, not take them away.

[gerbache]

My guess is that Apple and Google have been more vocal about it because they're headquartered in California. Sure, Microsoft has a fair number of employees here, but I bet we'd be hearing a lot more from them if this were a vote in Washington.


As for the Otter's suggestion that this is giving rights to homosexuals, it's a pretty twisted leap of logic to claim that. This proposition has absolutely no bearing on what judges decide about anything else; rather, it's sole purpose is to take away the currently existing right of gay couples to marry.

[Meowesq]

Wow, Otter--do you seriously think that defeating Prop 8 would GIVE rights to gays, who're as human as you or me--but passing it wouldn't take the RIGHT to marry away from them? Don't know if you recall a little document that starts off "[w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." And in case you're wondering, they mean "men" as in "human beings," not "humans of the male gender," since you seem to be all for discrimination.

[Penguinisto]

Err, Linux IIRC has no views on any issue, and every view on every issue... That's one of the reasons why I like Linus Torvalds and the dev community at kernel.org - it's a little bit of everybody in there.

[jandler]

@Mr. Dee
Microsoft say
http://news.cnet.com/Ballmer-on-car-insurance-and-gay-rights/2100-1014_3-5705310.html
http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-reverses-position-on-gay-rights/2100-1014_3-5697935.html

One more thing. Why do you have to turn this into a PR against another company? Everything must be a competition with you people? Apple, Google, Linux did this and that? What's Microsoft doing? Microsoft only cares about money..blah blah blah. You digust me. You take good will campaign and turn it into a competition, an attack on another company.

The point is *All* these companies employs different people in gender, in race, in ages, in sexual orientation, etc etc. And they are making a public statement, together, in the name of their broad employee base. This is the story here. This is what is important. I'm saying broad employee base simply because I am sure that there individuals within every companies that will either oppose or support such a bill.

[luney8]

Good Job Apple. Standing up against Discrimination!

[shycelticwitch]

I believe homosexuality is a sin, and that it is a choice made possible by a Godless liberal society, and not a "genetic" predisposition.... however, Apple's opposition to the amendment will not keep me from buying their superior products.

I also do not personally condemn those who CHOSE the lifestyle. I believe that evolution will eradicate this human defect sooner or later, with or without AIDS. The history of nature is undeniably exact. If we just live and let live, the anomaly will quietly go away.

[TheDruce]

I wouldn't be so sure that evolution will eradicate this so-called, "human defect." After all, stupidity is also a defect, but that hasn't gotten rid of comments like this.

Thing about religion, see, is that it's supposed to give you compassion for your fellow human beings. Instead, in most cases, it simply gives you an excuse to hate.

How sad you must be that you have to live in a world where everything doesn't fit into a the nice box of your superstition.

[halsue2]

Homosexuality is not a sin. Discrimination based upon sexual orientation clearly is. Sin implies a choice of action of some kind. Homosexuality is not a choice, per se. You ARE gay, or you are NOT. You may think SEX is sinful but I hope you don't.

[mlindl]

Well maybe I'd like to condemn you and I don't need a reason to. In fact, I don't need a reason to and in religious circles I can condemn anyone I want under the protection of understanding God's Will, which of course nobody even knows exists. In fact, if you believe in God's Will, then you believe that God intended for homosexuals to enjoy intimate relationships that are quite fulfilling.

I'm just curious as to why you think it's important to spout your opinion that homosexuality is a sin? How about if I share that homosexuality is a far superior intimate experience than heterosexuality and I feel sorry for all those that just haven't seen the light that I have seen.

That would be as preposterous and arrogant a comment as you pronouncing it a sin as though you are the Judge of life. If you think it is a sin, you already have condemned it but then Spock-like logical thinking may be out of bounds in this discussion, n'est-ce-pas?

[Renegade Knight]

To TheDruce:

You are of course assuming that you are not the stupid one who evolution would eradicate. Nor do you show the compassion you are chastizing the 'person of faith' for now showing to the level you would like to see.

By my count you have two strikes as a human and your targert one. Both of you could use a higher understanding. That would be the #2 commandment. Man I love irony.

[c|net Reader]

There may well be something to the genetic/physical basis for homosexuality suggested by some in recent years, but the greater number of homosexuals are psychologically damaged people. Regardless, a homosexual can choose to avoid acting on homosexual impulses and thus not be a sinner before God. That is no different than heterosexuals avoiding sexual intercourse with anyone other than their spouse in order to satisfy God's plan.

If one chooses to believe God doesn't exist, or prefers to read a translation of the Bible that has reinterpreted the original texts to favor homosexuality, then one can arrive at a different conclusion. Neither position, however, would seem to justify a technology company contributing to the defeat of Prop 8, unless the company touted its activist ideals clearly so employees and customers alike were aware of them.

[mikesmacz]

Thinking sexuality is religiously based is false. It's a biological function. What you believe isn't fact. (If you put some thought into it you would realize no one would choose to be hated by friends and family.) Records of homosexuality predate the Roman empire in all societies, races and religions. This is a human condition, not exclusive to anyone.

It's good to hear that you don't condem people. It shows you have heart and DO understand your own beliefs. (The people who worry about other peoples lives and try to change them are not as decent as yourself. Each of us has our own challenges in life and each person should focus on bettering their own life.)

Regardless this is not the issue. Companies have always had "political" views. It impacts their business. They have lobbyists and reps. out there all the time. Apple is taking a stand on equality. Simple fact. No one person should be alienated regardless of race, religion or sexual preference.

I commend Apple for making a hard and controversial stand!
Thank you!

[gerbache]

Right, just like how all straight people walk into a room full of the opposite sex and choose their spouses, right? Surely no one would ever just irrationally be attracted to someone, would they?

Considering that humans have shown evidence of homosexual behavior for thousands of years (don't believe me? go check out the drawings left in the ruins at Pompeii), it would seem that evolution is doing a pretty poor job of eradicating homosexuality.

[MoondustWolf]

A Godless libeal society? Well, I'm a Christian, and a liberal. And I don't believe in using God, whose love was so great, to defend hate. Where's that put you?

[renGek]

You can think its a choice. But if you believe that, that means you have never spoken to someone who is openly gay. You choose to be gay as much as you choose to be black, white or asian. But you certainly choose to take a stand on discriminating because discriminating gays right now is still pretty easy to do.

[Eddie-c]

Shycelticwitch, your comment is a joke. Your moniker, at the very least, implies paganism which the christian freakazoids are against thus, being in somewhat of a minority yourself, to point the finger and stand up & shout "condemn them" you're making yourself a target too. Salem still has witch burning on their books.

[bradenisme]

I agree its not about discrimination marriage is for creating a family and only a man and a woman together can create a family.

[mlindl]

Do you know this is the 21st century and it does NOT take a man and a woman together to make a family? And given my family history, I'm not so sure that any two people making a family is such a great idea. I find family a menacing and unsafe place, myself. I am under constant threat because I don't share their beliefs and am regarded as arrogant because I don't have a collection of books bound under one title that I can point to as "proof" that my beliefs are valid.

Gay marriage is as wonderful and awe-inspiring as marriage between a man and a woman and why ANYONE would deny that privilege to others is nothing but mean-spirited and dogmatic, in my view.

[MoondustWolf]

Yes, because there's no such thing as adoption.

[mikesmacz]

Marriage is a union between two people who love each other. (It would be sad if all it meant was baby making.)

:-)

I think it's best if homosexuals do get married. (Deter casual sex and in addition to that it would mean they need to adhere to the same laws as hetero couples. Divorce etc..)

[jennidianne]

This is absolutely false!! There are many, many gay couples in california raising healthy children just fine thank you. I would certainly call them families. I think the children in those families would absolutely benefit from having married parents. Maybe that doesn't fit with your world view, but it's the truth.

NO ON PROP 8.

[camp88]

Marriage may be for creating a family, but one doesn't need to be married to do this, as history well shows.

If you want to fall back on the "tradition" argument, remember that marriage is a legal agreement traditionally negotiated between two families (mostly by the patriarchs) that is as much an economic and political act to secure future wealth and political and social status, independent of the individual interests of the married couple, particularly the bride who traditionally has been viewed as a possession offered with other possessions--her dowery--to secure this economic and social relationship. The tradition of arranged marriages (which historically is common in all cultures) is not about love or procreation so much as they are about maintaining and building social and political power.

If precedent matters, then the procreation argument for marriage is a nonstarter.

[sebastien.kalonji]

Well done Apple!

[savvydude]

An absolutely ridiculous policy. Apple has placed itself against California voters. They could have opposed the initiative by simply stating their views - but by funding the opposition they reveal true animus towards those who disagree. Apple will lose on this one.

[pjhenry1216]

Apple has placed itself in opposition to a proposition. Not all California voters will be voting "yes." Therefore they're NOT against California voters, nor are they against people voting yes. You can disagree on a specific subject, yet not be against a person as a whole. You're reasoning skills are poor.

[jennidianne]

Savvydude, you aren't "savvy" at all. I have another word for what you are, but I can't repeat it. I need to remind you of the fact that when Prop 22 passed, the election was the lowest voter turnout in California history. So at that time, a small minority of the populous got one over on the majority. This time, its going to be different. Apple has made the right choice, and will get more of my business in the future.

[sartor1]

Good for Apple.
A law should be enacted that would prevent anyone or any entity from OUTSIDE
of a state from contributing to a fund to vote for or against a state initiative..
Like the Mormons from Utah have been doing to pass prop 8!
California is NOT utah! Geesh!

[mikesmacz]

I TOTALLY AGREE.
California is NOT utah!
The people who worry about other peoples lives and try to change them are not decent people.
Each of us has our own challenges in life and each person should focus on bettering their own life.

[Whatevah123]

Mormons aren't Utah either, they are a religion that is world wide. There are a lot of mormons in California. The problem with many people is that they want us(Yes I'm a mormon) to accept their point of view and tolerate it, but they won't tolerate ours. I'm against same sex marriage. I don't wish ill-will towards these people, I may actually find a lot in common with them, but i hold to a belief that marriage is a sacred partnership between a man and a woman only. Why can't people understand that this is my american right to express my opinions this way.

[paflorida]

Thanks Apple.... Just say no to Proposition H8.

[cemmer]

I wrote Apple already and told them I was disappointed that they bought into the rhetoric that this was a civil rights issue. Domestic partnership laws already protect same-sex couples. Why does marriage need to be redefined? And why does the Supreme Court have the right to redefine it?

http://tinyurl.com/6jeypc

[MoondustWolf]

Marriage is about two people in love. Domestic partnerships have few of the same rights as marriage. Educate yourself, please, instead of ignoring reality.

[Want2bakid]

Some religions won't recognize a marriage if one person isn't born into the their faith. Other religions have defined marriage to include multiple partners. The Church of England use to prohibit a man from marrying his dead wifes sister. And in ancient Egypt marrying a blood relative was looked up favorably. Even in our own country marriage use to be defined as only between people of the same race (in Loving v. Virginia a lot of "good church folk" argued that the definition of marriage excluded the mixing the blood of white people, and non-white).

Why should we pick your definition of marriage over any of these others?

A better question, why should government get involved in enforcing what the definition of marriage is - what authority do they have to give preference to one group over another. Two people who can legal consent should be able to enter a marriage contract, and the government should recognize the terms of that contract.

And if your church wants to use a more narrow criteria to define the symbolic side of marriage - even if its so extreme to not recognize marriage between people of different races - so be it. The government shouldn't be in the business of telling a religion what they define marriage as.

[mlindl]

As usual, Apple is right about this. Remember when their logo was rainbow-colored?

savvydude is wrong because Apple hasn't placed itself against ALL California voters as his comment would insinuate. It has placed itself against some, and hopefully, a minority of California voters.

Gay marriage threatens nor hurts no one. This is just pettiness based on silly religious correctness. Religion is basically wild and wacky stories put together in a way to terrorize you into submitting to a larger group of wild and wacky people that mistake faith as fact. There are no facts in religion, just faith and beliefs.

Apple is showing it's support for all people to enjoy the benefits of living in California and refuses to support discriminatory practices that encourage prejudicial attitudes.

Good for Apple. Bad for savvydude and his ilk.

[savvydude]

Oh puh-leeze. You are obviously unaware of how this all came down. California voters said that marriage is "a union between one man and one woman" when we passed Proposition 22 in 2000, Then, the California Supreme Court, headquartered in San Francisco, found it to be 'unconstitutional' in 2008. Eight million voters were wrongs, they said, and 5 justices are right. So, Proposition 8 is a reaction to an activist, egotistic court.

What is truly odd about this whole Apple opposition, tough, is the timing. With less than two weeks to go, and with Prop. 8 leading in the polls. one might think that Apple is just paying lip service to the gay community. After all, Pacific Gas & Electric, also in SF, gave $250,000 to the 'no on 8' months ago. Apple, which is a zillion times bigger than PG&E, could have donated a million, 5 million or even 10 million back in the summer - but they didn't. Even Brad Pitt, a single individual, gave $100,000. Plus, Apple announced this on a Friday, which is common when you want to bury a story. Nope, Apple's heart isn't in this at all.

[mikesmacz]

savvydude, companies that show monetary support for political views are always "motivated" choices.
:(
There is a massive number of gay employees in Apple. Apple has always been progressive and aggressive on non sexual discrimination in the work place. It is heart felt and "motivated".
:)

[josephbloggs]

savvydude, you are clearly unaware of how this all came down. The Supreme Court held that a voter passed law restricting marriage to one man and one woman was in violation of the state Constitution. Prop. 8 is trying to reform the Constitution to take away the rights of a certain minority. Apple sees that as civil rights discrimination, and is standing up for that minority's rights. It's nothing to do with 5 judges. And BTW - the California Supreme Court is not headquartered in SF. It's split between Sacramento, SF, and LA.

[c|net Reader]

I don't understand why Google or Apple feel the need to fund a campaign for a social issue. I could understand the money if it were for a pol thought to be friendlier to the company's bottom line, but not this. Sure, the companies have some gay employees, but why would they use company profits, which should be for the employees -- directly or indirectly such as increasing the longevity of the organization -- and shareholders, to support a cause which cannot possibly affect the company negatively by its being withheld? That is, if neither Google nor Apple contributed to the Prop 8 campaign, would any homosexuals have thought ill of them? Having done so, they risk the ire of those favoring Prop 8 which may cost them more than they might gain from those favoring it.

[pjhenry1216]

Umm... I dunno, maybe cause they care about their employees and don't want to see them discriminated against?

[tehscott]

The company profits go, in millions, to the CEOs...not the employees.

[alegr]

"The company profits go, in millions, to the CEOs...not the employees.",

Like a whole ONE dollar of Steve Jobs' salary...

[Matt Asay]

Yet another example of a company's executive team (like Google's Schmidt getting behind Obama) losing track of what it's supposed to do: sell product. This ballot measure shouldn't affect Apple in any way, and it should stay out of the fight.

This isn't about discrimination, as has been said. It's about due process, which courts have increasingly undermined by making democracy something that judges determine rather than the people. It's true that judges sometimes need to stand up for minority voices (Brown vs. Board of Education), but this isn't a case where that applies. By just about any measure, and certainly economics, homosexual couples are doing exceptionally well in California and elsewhere.

This is about letting democracy decide, not 4 judges. The EU has never approved this. Nor has 99.9999999999999999999% of the planet. It's a few California judges that we're talking about here. If it's right, the people will decide. Judges should not, not on something this important.

[mlindl]

The judges interpreted the California constitution. They didn't say they were for or against gay marriage, they just said the California constitution didn't prohibit it. The voters now get a chance to place an element of hatred for fellow tax-paying citizens into the constitution.

If it passes, it will be to California's economic detriment. Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, here we come. California bye-bye if No wins. The gay boycott should be huge.

[MoondustWolf]

Really? Well, with the issue pratically tied in California and support pouring in from all over the country and the world to defend equality, I guess it's just a really, really, really, really vocal .00000000000000000001%.

[sflocal]

Marriage is a religious definition. So with that, I do not support marriage between same sex. However since I am not a religious person anyways, I do not support Prop 8 simply because discrimination of any type (including "stupid" people) does not belong in the constitution - state, country, whatever.

Companies first and foremost are made up of people. And what Apple is doing is being a community leader and I commend them for it.

Religious "extremists" shooting their mouth off here just proves to the world that even though the intent of religion is to promote peace and love to the world and that God is supposed to love everyone, they use religion as an excuse to promote hatred.

Any wonder why the world is in such a mess?

[mikesmacz]

well said sflocal

[heehau]

Someone cynical may point out that there is a strong overlap between buyers of Apple products and opponents of Proposition 8. The younger and more educated you are, the more likely you are going to oppose Proposition 8 - younger and better-educated than average seems like a fair description of Apple fans. So it may just be a marketing ploy.

This, of course, raises a different question: If the young are overwhelmingly against marriage discrimination, isn't it just a matter of time until this amendment gets repealed, even if passed in 2008? The strong opposition against gay marriage in 2000 is by now faded to the point where the majorities are unclear (they certainly were not 8 years ago). If there is a gay marriage amendment in the California Constitution in 2008, what makes you think it is not going to be repealed in 2010?

On the issue of democracy vs. the rule of judges: If you go and read the ruling in this case, you'll notice how frequently the judges went back to the similar ruling they issued half a century ago in the matter of interracial marriages. The majority against interracial marriages, turns out, was much stronger back then than the one against gay marriage - and yet the judges back then overruled a similar vote (and a similar amendment to the Constitution).

I would find it extremely bizarre to live in a country (or state) in which a "colored" man couldn't marry a "white" woman or vice-versa. Wouldn't you? Yet, the arguments in favor of miscegenation laws sounded a lot like the arguments against gay marriage. That's what makes the ruling stand out so much (if you bothered reading, that is): the majority of Supreme Court Justices decided that the situation is similar.

50 years from now, we'll probably think of the time when a woman couldn't marry another woman or a man another man, and wonder just how backwards our ancestors were.

[bwvla]

As for Apple: perhaps they have a disproportionately large number of gay employees, stock holders, and/or customers. Regardless its their choice to make just the same as there are companies out there than donate monies the opposite direction. You are of course free to not purchase their products, work there, or purchase their stock.

As for the people deciding: The people did decide when the state constitution was written with freedom and equality in mind.

As for the Court: The current justices are not deciding, they are protecting the constitution they were sworn to protect. It grants equality to all citizens, not just men, not just white people, and not just heterosexuals. What the majority "likes" any given era and the live let live rules we've agreed to live under are two different things.

As for the rest of the planet: Gay marriage is allowed in Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain. But then no concept is 90+ percent unless India and China sign on I guess.

As for you: It sounds like you don't know how to live and let live.

[alegr]

"well on the way, head in a cloud, ..."

I see, Matt, that you live by your beliefs, be it open source or The Big Book.

[justdrawnthatway]

Way to go Apple!
This is not a political issue but a civil rights issue. As something that is inherent to a person (and not chosen, unlike one?s religious beliefs or political stances) sexual orientation should not be allowed to be basis for discrimination, especially with a fundamental right such as marriage. I?m with Apple all the way on this one. Glad to know that at least some of my money is going to a company that is civically responsible.

[close5828]

Why does anyone truly care who the gays marry? I would sooner understand, yet not support an anti-divorce ammendment. I neither understand or support Prop. 8.

[ROBOCUB]

Thank you Apple for supporting what is right and just.

I'd also like to say heterosexuals DO NOT own the concept or the institution of "marriage". It should be a right for all people to marry who they choose to marry. And as American citizens, we all pay the same taxes and therefore should all have the same rights. I certainly don't hear the people who want to ban gays from practically everything also saying, hmm we dont want them to be part of anything America, so maybe we should make a law that says they don't have to pay any taxes either. Now there's a day hell will freeze over.

I just can't wait for the day that marriage is allowed for all and all those who wish to deny the same and equal rights and benefits will see that their world did not burst into flames or end in a cataclysm as they suggest it will.

I guess these ignorant religious freaks really don't understand the proverbial American mantra: to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

[ROBOCUB]

P.S. Religioners certainly don't understand "Separation of Church and State". So why should they be surprised when corporations get involved too. And the church doesn't even pay taxes.

[MikeSchwiebert]

uhm, interesting point, I guess. Even if you look up marriage in the dictionary you will see that it is a legal union between a man and woman, so yes, heterosexuals do own marriage.
It should be a right for people to marry whoever they choose? You can't really believe that. Do you really support incest and polygamy?
And be careful about those disparaging remarks about "religious freaks" who not only crafted this society that defined those rights for the first time in human history but rightly recognize that they are endowed by the Creator. Interesting to quote religious freaks and call them ignorant in the same sentence.
I have no problem with anyone exercising their vote for our against what they believe. That is part of living in our free society. Our country is better today because people have challenged the status quo and preconceptions through out our history. I just don't agree with publicly traded companies spending other peoples money for their personal political agendas.
Today you may agree with Apple's decisions. You may disagree with their next political agenda..
Good point about the taxes, though. But it is true that in a republic not everyones can coexist at the same time, even though they are paying taxes. We all pay taxes and get to participate, but there is no way that paying taxes should guarantee that all of my views have to win in society. I think that would be impossible.

[MikeSchwiebert]

Robocub:
"Religioners" - Now that's funny!
PS If you are referring to the"Separation of Church and State" as the First Amendment, it does not bar churches from involvement in the state. It bars the state from establishing an official church.
I guess you do think that one's morals belong in politics because you define Apple's position as "right and just" (a moral assertion) though not "religioners" beliefs?
How would you distinguish a moral position (apparently allowed in the political arena in your view) from a moral, religious position (apparently not allowed in the political arena in your view)?

[camp88]

@ MikeSchwiebert ,

I took you up on your suggestion and looked up "marriage" in the dictionary; alas you'd be wrong to conclude that "heterosexuals do own marriage," as you claim.
Here's what the current Webster's tells us:
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

So if you'd read beyond the first definition, you'll find that the dictionary revokes any ownership from heterosexual hands.

[MikeSchwiebert]

@Camp88

Alas, you are absolutely right and I am wrong.
Current dictionaries have added this definition to marriage. Very interesting.

My paperback Oxford Desk Dictionary (copyright 1997) does not include this definition, but the New Oxford Dictionary on my Macbook Pro does include this definition.
The 1997 version is
1. Legal union of a man and woman 2. Wedding 3. intimate union

What a shame for them to do this. To include a definition that is not even legal.
....hmm I wonder if they have an agenda...

[gopnick]

Apple is clearly passing a moral judgment just as the religious folks are. It's fine to take a position on something related to the business itself, but to use a publicly traded company to get involved in social politics betrays the trust of the investors.

I sold my Apple stock today. I don't want my money as an investor going to any company that uses that money to advocate for any kind of political reform except that which is specifically tied to the business itself.

[ROBOCUB]

One man's trash is another's treasure. I will buy up that Apple stock you just sold. And a bargain it is today too.

[edenic]

Perfect analysis and great suggestion. I just did the same with my stock.

[josephbloggs]

Actually, it's a very flawed analysis. Apple isn't trying to advocate for political reform, it's advocating AGAINST political reform. The Supreme Court held that a voter passed law restricting marriage to one man and one woman was in violation of the state Constitution. Prop. 8 is trying to reform the Constitution to take away the rights of a certain minority. Apple sees that as civil rights discrimination, and is standing up for that minority's rights.

[Dana Kincaid]

Gopnick, I have this feeling that you are lying about selling the stock. And if you are telling the truth buying high and selling low is stupid. Methinks I'll go buy some Apple stock while people like you are selling yourself short.

How many shares did you sell, Gop (GOP fake name)? How many? I want them.

So you see, GOP boyo, you have hurt no one but yourself. Luser.

[MikeSchwiebert]

gopnik, I agree with your analysis here. This is not the "business" of a publicly traded company. For all those who agree with this decision by Apple, it is only because they also want to vote no on this prop.
The argument is not that Apple should have donated money to the vote yes campaign, but that this is not an arena that a publicly traded company should participate in. This is the real debate NOT the debate of whether or not one agrees with this particular prop.
Said another way -- Would those who are defending this decision by Apple also defend Apple's decision had they contributed $100,000 towards getting people to vote "yes"?
Did the shareholders get to choose how this money was used by the company?
Would all shareholeders agree with this use of money by Apple?
Then the people who made this decision for Apple, should have made their decisions as individuals at the ballot box and left the company money out of it.

[Perry_Clease]

At one time there were laws here in California, other states too, against miscegenation and they were supported by a lot of people. I don't see a difference between striking down those laws and the one prohibiting same sex marriage. We do not live in a pure democracy the Constitution of the United States is supposed to protect the minority from the abuses of the majority so just because most people feel a certain way about it doesn't make it okay. Anyway, the race is close, but it looks like Prop 8 will fail and that is a good thing.

[jzdoesit]

The difference is that race is immutable. Race is not something that should be regulated. Homosexuality on the other hand is an orientation. Sexual appetite is something that can be regulated and in many cases should be regulated. I think if you examine your beliefs you would agree. Do you believe that a 30 year old man should be able to mary a 15 year old girl if he is attracted to her? Do you believe a brother and a sister should be able to marry? This argument is about a moral issue, not a civil rights issue. Comparing it to civil rights diminishes the importance of the civil rights movement.

[renGek]

jzdoesit.
There is a major flaw in your logic which has been tried many times. A 15 year old is not a consenting adult. Two gay men getting married are 2 consenting adults. Diminishing the importance of civil rights is absurd. Thats like saying whites have rights so lets not give blacks any rights because that would diminish rights overall.

[pjhenry1216]

There's already been lots of research supporting genetic causes for homosexuality. Its even been found in other species. Its not a choice. Also, its not lust. If a 15 year old girl loved a 30 year old man and vice versa (you kinda forgot to mention it needs to be both ways), then all they have to do is wait 3 years and then yes, they can get married. Brothers and sisters can't get married because incest is actually extremely detrimental to the blood line. Incest breeds genetic disorders. It makes scientific sense to bar incest. This is a moral as much as a civil rights issue. The fact you don't understand that clearly shows that you are ignorant on the entire subject.

[jzdoesit]

First the 15 year old argument is only one of my arguments, but contrary to what you said, it is not flawed. Society as a whole has made the moral determination that a 15 year old is not a consenting adult. I would argue there are plenty of 15 year olds that feel that moral assertion is discriminatory. Basically you just proved my point. You believe it is okay to discriminate against a group based on your moral platform. There are plenty of cases where 15 year olds love older men but cannot get married. That is discrimination.

[jzdoesit]

Saying all they have to do is wait three years is no better than saying homesexuals can still get married, they just can't marry someone of the same sex. It still means you are restricting who can marry. My point being that society has determined that it is okay to draw lines as to who can get married and when they can. This issue is about where the line should be drawn. I think voters should determine where lines should be drawn.

Whether or not someone is born gay or not is inconsequential. Homosexuality is defined by ones sexual orientation, not by their ancestry (race is defined by ancestry). I believe that orientation is something to which it is okay to apply moral maxims. You do to. Society has decided it is morally wrong to marry more than one person, even if you are born with the desire to love more than one person.

Society has decided it is morally wrong to marry a sibling. I know you claim that there are scientific reasons why this should be prohibited, but people also make scientific arguments about why we should prohibit same sex marriages.