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.

[jzdoesit]

I wonder how Apple feels about polygamous marriages? Laws against pologymy discriminate against people who love more than one person. How do they feel about insestual marriage? Laws against incestual marriage discriminate against those who love family members.

I wonder how they feel about men or women marrying partners that are under 18. Marriage discrimates against people who are oriented towards very young partners.

It is irresponsible for Apple to donate money to a cause like this. Apple has a fiduciary responsibility to its share holders. If its share holders vote to use the money that belongs to them to fund a political cause, then fine do it. If Steve Jobs supports a cause, let him donate his own money.


Apple has a fudiciary responsibility to its share holders. If its share holders vote to use the money that belongs to them to fund a political cause, then fine do it. If Steve Jobs supports a cause, let him donate his own money.

[edenic]

Your questions here are incredibly important and it's clear that most people responding to this article and supporting Apple on this move have never thought about them. Everyone posting here makes moral judgments about the limits of sexual expression. The morally superior that judge those of us who believe marriage should have limits believe in limits too as your questions suggest. No one believes (though they say they do) that marriage is a "fundamental right" or even a human right. Think about how many people are being denied this right if, in fact, it is a right!

Further, anyone who claims to believe in natural selection and Darwinian evolution cannot morally support same-sex relationships. Prohibiting gay marriage, incest, adult-child love and the like should not exclusively be motivated by religion. Anyone who cares about the propagation of the species should be fundamentally opposed to gay relationships. There is not one argument from evolution that could support such relationships and Darwinians should be up in arms against homosexuality as ardently as they are up in arms against religion. In fact, it is the religious that are the most in accord with natural selection as they are the ones having all the children.

This is why arguments that attempt to equate the debate over interracial marriage with the debate over gay marriage are completely wrong-headed. One's skin color has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality. One's gender absolutely does.

[pjhenry1216]

@edenic: You want an evolutionary argument? Two people in a caring relationship tend to make more people. This is a problem when there's overpopulation. We inherently crave an intimate relationship. Homosexuality allows for couples to be in love, yet have no chance to produce offspring. I'd say this is a benefit to evolution.

As an answer to jzdoesit:
1) Polygamy is a problem because it introduces more problems than it solves. It places an unfair burden on employers providing health insurance. It causes chaos when it comes down to rights of ownership. Who is the rightful guardian of the children, who is the proper next of kin, etc, etc. Plus, polygamy is detrimental to society as it is generally bad for the males because it increases the number of mates for the successful male, but not the less successful ones. So, it leads to less variety between children and ultimately incest is practically inevitable as fewer and fewer bloodlines are allowed to continue. So, its easier to just say pick one mate and deal with it. If you want to have other mates fine, but the government is unable to support it.
2) Laws against incest. Incest is *extremely* detrimental as it breeds genetic disorders and effectively poisons the gene pool if you will.
3) Age. There's age against when you can vote, drink, and drive. I have no problem with age you can marry. If they want to marry someone 15 years younger, just wait til their 18. They'll still be 15 years younger. There's no genetic disposition (and disposition is the wrong word, homosexuality only feel attracted to the same sex, not that they are more likely to like someone of the same sex than the different one. there's nothing that makes someone genetically unable to be attracted to someone over 18).
4) Even though you didn't say it, laws against marrying animals. Marriage is consensual. Animals can't give consent. Plus they don't have rights as they aren't humans.

[jzdoesit]

@pjhenry1216

You made some good arguments and I thank you for your civilized reply. However, isn't the bulk of your argument moral judgments as well? When you start saying what is beneficial to society and what is not beneficial, then you are making a moral argument. When you say that administration of marriage laws will be to hard for polygomous relationships then you are saying that it is okay to discriminate because it is not good for society. Defining what is good and what is not good for society is called morality.

With regards to animals, again you are making a moral judgement that marriage should only be between two consenting adults. You are discriminating against people who really love their pets.

[wizuby]

jzdoesit...I get this strange feeling that perhaps you are a closet case? si o no?

[rigged4fun]

You know who wins in this battle....LAWYERS! With marriage comes divorce. The only loosers are the people who get married!

[tacit]

In the long run, it's an irrelevant issue, as meaningless as whether or not the executives of Standard Oil favored or opposed the integration of blacks into labor unions in 1912.

The forces arrayed against gay marriage, history shows, are almost certain to fail in the long run. The same issues and the same arguments were used by conservatives to oppose interracial marriage; in 1913, propositions to write amendments prohibiting interracial marriage were on many state ballots and a US Constitutional amendment had been proposed, yet eventually history showed that such discrimination had no place in the United States.

Traditionally, social conservatives can be counted on to be on the wrong side of every social issue. Social conservatives were on the wrong side of the slavery issue. They were on the wrong side of the women's suffrage issue. They were on the wrong side of the civil rights issue. They were on the wrong side of the interracial marriage issue. Today, they are on the wrong side of the gay marriage issue.

Gay marriage is an issue whose conclusion has already been written. Social conservatives may try to pass their little amendments and their little laws, and they may inconvenience a lot of folks, but the long-term conclusion is foregone. There will be a time--certainly within the next 120 years, likely within the next 70--when gay marriage will be as legal as interracial marriage, and only a small handful of bigots will remain bitterly reviling folks who live lives that they don't approve of and whining for the "good old days" when their particular prejudices still carried the weight of law.

Apple is merely showing a modest bit of foresight in being on the right side of a social issue whose conclusion is given, even though the path from here to there will quite likely be paved in blood.

[bigmc6000]

Your definition of "social conservatives" really shows how horribly the media has re-painted history. Social conservatism has never been defined by a single point issue and has never will be. This new definition that the media has been pushing where "liberal" = progressive and "conservative" = out dated might cut it in CA but it doesn't fly in most of the rest of the USA. I know plenty of liberals and conservatives who have equally gone off the "deep end" (so-to-speak) in regards to social issues.
Also, it's this "holier than thou" argument (referring to everyone who doesn't agree with you as "bigots") that really means nothing more than you are, in fact, a hypocrite. If you truly supported democracy and the views of others you wouldn't go around calling people who don't agree with you bigots - it's called tolerance (and less likely but still acceptable "acceptance"). You can argue for your stance until you're blue in the face but if don't allow for people to disagree with you then you have become the very thing you detest...

[tacit]

"If you truly supported democracy and the views of others you wouldn't go around calling people who don't agree with you bigots - it's called tolerance (and less likely but still acceptable "acceptance")."

Naah, it's not people who disagree with me who are bigots. The folks I'm calling "bigots" are the folks who believe that the law should apply differently to groups they don't like--such as, for example, folks who believe that the law should apply differently for blacks and whites, the folks who believe the law should apply differently for women and men, and the folks who believe the law should apply differently for gays and straights.

People who think blacks shouldn't marry whites? Bigots. People who believe women shouldn't vote? Bigots. People who believe that gays shoudln't marry? Yep--just like folks who think blacks shouldn't marry whites--bigots.

But, like I said, it's an irrelevant issue anyway. This Proposition 8 nonsense is the last gasp of people who think their own discomforts should be written into law. Seventy, eighty years from now, gay marriage will be a part of the fabric of society, just like interracial marriage is, and society will keep on going just as well as it has ever done.

Hope that cleared things up for you.

[bigmc6000]

Oh I so much love conversations like this! Fun fun fun. So, I'm feeling like I should go ahead and jump into the water and see what's going on. First off - an IT company should not be making statement like this. I wouldn't care if they support or oppose my personal view, it's because they are an IT company. More importantly I'm 100000% sure they didn't get a 100% support from 1) their share holders or 2) their employees. I'm always wary of a companies board that decides they are going to make a social statement that they know is counter to what at least some of their employees and share holders think (what happened to protecting the minority?). Apple - you make consumer electronics - stop acting like you are more than that (same goes for actors as well).

Now - on to point 2. This measure doesn't affect Apple even one iota, releasing an official statement is ridiculous and insulting to all their employees and share holders who do not support the stance Apple has taken. If I was an employee or shareholder I would write a stern letter to Apple expressing my disdain with them for making political statements (and if I got fired I could easily claim discrimination - what a great country we live in...).

And lastly - and this is the biggest point - most of the people I know against gay marriage aren't against civil unions - they are against usage of the word "marriage" to describe their union. Why you might ask - well it's because the word marriage is a very, very old word and has a religious significance to it. If we ignore history and the historical meanings of words what are we other than those ignorant people? Also, the so called "right" to marry is nothing more than a joke of an argument. There is no such thing as the "right" to marry. It is no where in any state or federal document that a person has a "right" to marriage. Now, if you think it's unfair that persons of the same-sex are unable to get the same benefits as a married couple that's a great argument and I'll back that argument but claiming "right to marry" shows an egregious ignorance of what rights are actually granted to you as an American.

FWIW, I'm all for civil unions and giving all the legal benefits to same-sex couples but redefining something that has historical and religious significance is nothing more than "PCness" run amok. When people use the political correctness argument in re-writing history we should grant a wary eye to it...

[josephbloggs]

The shareholders give the Board the right to run the company the way it sees fit, so point #1 is wrong. Point #2 is also wrong because Apple wants to attract the best and most creative minds it can. If California were to pass Prop. 8 it would discriminate against a class of people, and some of those people might leave (or not come to California in the first place). This would restrict the pool of people it can choose from.

As for your last - and biggest - point: you miss the point. Civil Unions do not give the same rights as marriage, and the Constitution currently gives adults the right to marry the person they love. Prop. 8 is trying to take that right away. As for the word "marriage" having religious significance - didn't you know that there's the separation of church and state in this country? You can't take away a person's civil rights based on religion.

[pjhenry1216]

Yea, churches have had a lot of definitions for a lot of people (heathens, etc.). Its ok to ignore some definitions without being ignorant. History said a person of color was only considered 3/5 of an actual person. Using your definition, we really shouldn't change it because if we ignore our history, it makes us ignorant.

Awesome point you got there.

Also, companies have images. This is within Apple's image in my opinion. And they never EVER needed 100% support. Only majority support. I'm sure they got that before giving this message.

It does affect Apple. Apple has gone out of its way to try and support employees within same sex relationships. Apple is now going out of its way to try and support their employees from being discriminated against.

Civilization has dropped traditions repeatedly through the past. Just because "it's been like this for years" is a terrible, TERRIBLE argument.

[Perry_Clease]

"by shycelticwitch October 24, 2008 11:26 AM PDT
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."

Are really a Celtic Witch, shy or not? Isn't there something in the Bible about not suffering a witch to live?

[renGek]

I think its offensive that a man cannot see his dying partner in the hospital because the doctor is a homophobe and decides to take the stand that 'you're not immediate family so you can't see him". They pay an equal share of their taxes just like you do so why do you get legal protection for your love one and they don't.

And how exactly does it affect your marriage for those of you so concern? Gays have been marrying for years now, have you seen hetero marriages dissolve because of it ??

[bigmc6000]

actually by getting married you end up paying more taxes - it's referred to as the "marriage penalty." So, fiscally speaking, you'd be better off staying single...

[pjhenry1216]

@bigmc6000: that is not always true.

[Michichael]

Not true Big - a lot of tax credits and federal benefits are only available to married couples, not "civil unions"

[babaluaye_79]

Completely AWESOME! I knew there is a reason I convinced all family and friends to DROP Microsoft and pick up new apple products (including the iPhone of course) in the past few months.

Just want to say one thing. Religious issue? Political issue? Human Rights issue? What is all of the reasons people want to push this into the state constitution? These are people who want to deny any sorts of rights that they enjoy because they are truly deeply honestly disgusted by the idea of sex between two people of the same sex, its that simple.

There may be reasons why there should be restrictions on peoples actions, but marriage is about love and yet, when it comes to government, its more than love. Because so many rights and benefits by law are given to people who are married.

Does this have anything at all to do with religion? NO! Some Churches have accepted marrying people of the same sex. There is no law that any government in this country can pass with respect to religion that can stop that from happening. The question at hand is whether or not the government which represents the people should recognize these marriages as 'legal'. This is about government and law. It is strictly political.

So, if we are talking about the government not granting similar rights to two people in a union strictly on the bases of their physical makeup being similar. Than this is a definite disgusting discrimination that is intolerable.

A while back in college, I was approached to discuss this topic with a leader of a Christian group. I posed the question to him, 'What is sexuality of the human soul?' He was not able to answer the question. I would pose that question to anybody who wishes to raise this as a religious issue. If you cannot answer the question with a clear conscience. Then how is it that you can deny the same rights and privileges that you enjoy to someone else, regardless of any beliefs you may have.

Apple and Google made excellent choices to show that they do not stand for any type of hypocrisy and discrimination.

APPLE can look forward to me providing my consulting services in the future.

[RMR13]

Marriage is a bond between two PEOPLE (be it hetro or same sex couples) that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. Live & Let Love

[Groucho6]

No law should ever be valid which prevents two consenting adults from doing anything they please which does not affect another adult. Bias and prejudice against people for any reason is wrong. It's wrong for religion, it's wrong for race, it's wrong for sexual orientation.

Good for Apple. Good for Google. I applaud you both for taking a stand to promote and protect individual civil rights.

[louislapid]

As a stockholder in Apple, a California resident who already voted against gay marriage and a user of Apple products since 1984, I stand against Apple for putting a dime of my money toward defeating Prop 8. The people of CA have spoken. We don't want gay marriages here. A marriage is between a man and a woman period. For one judge to overturn a decision the majority of Californians have voted on is utter disregard for the voting system. Gay marriage or not, the real issue is whether a vote in CA means anything when one judge (who had sexual perversion issues substantiated in the press) can overturn the people's voice. Apple should be ashamed of itself for such utter disregard for our voting rights here in California.

[josephbloggs]

Nonsense!! A proposition was passed in one of the lowest voter turnouts in history. The majority of the people of California did not speak (they may have had the chance to, but that's a different issue). And the California Supreme Court decided that law was against the Constitution. Voter passed laws are struck down all the time because they're unconstitutional. It's why they have three branches of government - for checks and balances. Prop. 8 is simply an attempt to write discrimination into the Constitution because the backers of it don't like the law. And your view is the sort of discrimination that is - and should remain - unconstitutional.

[Gromit801]

All these idiotic remarks about "activist judges." Something the users learned from Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh I'd guess.

The California Supreme Courted voted 4-3 to overturn the initiative ban last spring. SIX our of seven of those "activist" judges are REPUBLICANS!

[peaceeverywhere]

Way to go Apple, this is fantastic!

BTW there are Mormons against prop 8
mormonsformarriage.com

[Imalittleteapot]

The government should just get out of the marriage business. Nobody should have to get permission from the government to get married in the first place. It's really just a scam to sell marriage licenses in my opinion. In my religion we believe that the marriage is put together by God anyway. I'm just as married with or without the stupid license. It's like telling you that you can have all the money in the bank across the street. Doesn't matter what I say because it isn't my bank. The government wants you to think it's their bank though.

In my religion same sex couples can't get married no matter how hard they try. Even if the government had given you permission you'd just be fooling yourself. However, your religion or beliefs may differ. Don't fool yourself into thinking the government has the authority to say though.

When America decided to turn down being ran by a godly appointed king and be governed by the people they lost the ability to speak for any God or enforce God's rules. We call this separation of church and state. They turned this authority down on purpose. The government can't tell you what your church allows. It couldn't make same sex marriage legal even if they wanted to. The only thing the government can do is regulate and enforce the earthly legal contracts we sign amongst ourselves, but marriage is more than a simple earthly contract.

Now, if all they want is a legal contract well then by all means. However, that's not the same as marriage. But the government should still treat everyone equally and fairly. I shouldn't be treated differently because I'm married. I shouldn't be treated better or worse or pay more or less taxes or not be able to be at my best friend's deathbed or whatever. Everyone should have equal rights even if gay, straight, married, or single.

Maybe too many people think marriage=legal contract. Well, if marriage is just a legal contract then it's pretty sexist to say two people can't enter into a legal agreement just because they're the same sex. So, obviously the big uproar against same sex marriage is all based in religion. Well, all you religious folks need to stop worrying. If your God is the real God then he isn't going to accept the marriage anyway right? The marriage wouldn't really count. It seems you?ve lost a bit of your faith to believe that the government can control God. We'll all know it isn't real anyway right? Where's your faith? Then again maybe they have a different religion that says they can get married. Well, we have freedom of religion right? I guess we'll just have to wait until doomsday to see who was right.

However, either way, anytime you hear a politician say they're going to legalize gay marriage or ban gay marriage it doesn't matter. They're basically screwing with you because neither one of them can say which marriages God allows and which marriage God doesn't. All that matters is how seriously the couple takes it. If your marriage doesn't mean anything to you because the government doesn't approve of it then you didn't really have a marriage anyway.

[Michichael]

You don't have to have permission from the government to get married. You only need their permission if you want any social benefits available to a married couple such as assistance in purchasing a house, spousal illness or death, adopting a child from our overcrowded orphanages...

[Imalittleteapot]

And that's wrong. There's no reason a married person should get special rights just because they're married. What logical reason should a married person be treated better by the government? The government should treat everyone the same married or not and stay out the marriage business entirely.

[rcreveli]

Marriage in the US is contract law.

I'm not syaing marriage does not have religious importance (I'm a Christian)
I'm not saying that marriages are not based on love (Many including mine are)

But in the end marriage is a contract between people with a lot of legal stipulations.

Being Married effects custody, property ownership, credit and debt, taxes etc.

I worked with a gay women who was "married" for 15 years. If her partner dies shouldn't her probate work the same way as mine (married 9 years)

If I lived in CA I would be against Prop 8

Also I don't see the Jesus I've read about creating crap like this.

Ray

[Imalittleteapot]

If marriage is just a legal contract and nothing more then why not allow same sex marriage? They should be able to enter into the same legal contracts as everyone else right?

[rcreveli]

That was my point. Hence being Against Prop 8. Like I believe Jesus would be. Sorry if this wasn't clear.

[Imalittleteapot]

It was pretty clear, but I was going so fast.

[blondi69]

Ban Republican marriage!

[wizuby]

I am quite positive that I heard both Joe Biden and Barack Obama say that they were against redefining marriage.

[blondi69]

Go Apple! We are a two iPhone, three iPod, one Macbook family, and this definitely makes me want to continue supporting this corporation.

As one half of an interracial, married couple, if we give in to these bigots, next they'll be trying to invalidate my marriage!

Down with discrimination! Down with oppression!

[mswete7]

This makes me revisit my desire to buy an Apple product. I've also moved towards using Google more than Yahoo! now too. While technology companies shouldn't take a political position, this is not a political issue, but rather a civil rights issue. Whether or not you believe in same-sex marriage, it's wrong to eliminate rights from people.

NO on Prop 8!!!

[jamesmac2]

Why do people find it hard to understand that homosexuality maybe a form of natural population control? It seems to me that would make sense. To keep the balance in the natural world this would be a means for nature to keep a balance in the over population of the human race. If ever human being breeds the world would be even more over run and crowded. It's not just one ethnic group that is gay......its part of ever one of them. Prop 8 is discrimination against gays and in 2008 we as people should see that. Sometimes organized religion can really bring out the worst in people.

[sdf563]

I'm really glad that Apple has put its money where many of its customers and employees are. this is consistent with their position several years ago of threatening to close an office in Texas when the Texas legislature wanted to prohibit benefits for same-sex couples. Given that some conservative corporations are pouring money into the coffers to pass Prop. 8, it's nice to have a corporate counterweight.

[MikeSchwiebert]

(Although I think this should be about a companies involvement in the political process, just a note about "gay" marriage in general. I am being a little facetious here...)
Gays already have the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage.
Since marriage is a legal, formal union of a man and woman, a gay person has this right.
AFAIK there is no law that prohibits a gay man from marrying a woman or a lesbian from marrying a man.
So, gay or straight, we already have the same rights in regard to marriage.
How can this be an argument about giving the same rights to everyone, since we already have the same rights.

[josephbloggs]

That's a pretty specious argument, MikeSchwiebert. It's the right to marry the adult you LOVE that's at stake, not the right to marry anyone. How would you like it if the government wouldn't let you marry the person you loved, and instead said if you want to get married, you have to marry someone you don't love?

[Imalittleteapot]

Well then I guess we can make it illegal for blacks to marry whites again too. After all they'd have the same rights as everyone else right? They'd have the right to marry into their own race and that's fair right?

[MikeSchwiebert]

I did say that I was being facetious...
@josephhbloggs
I think in this case what is at stake is the "right to marry the person of your choice" verses the "right to marry." The courts have specifically identified these as separate issues. I merely attempted to point out that everyone does have the same rights when it comes to marriage. What is at stake here is the redefinition of the word marriage.
@Imalittleteapot
Historically, the courts have been unwilling to make this argument that you make comparing anti-miscegenation laws as synonymous to the redefinition of marriage required for same-sex marriages. Partly, it seems to me, because the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that marriage is linked to procreation. Same-sex marriages are not and therefore do not fall into the same protections.
(of interest may be the Hernandez VS Robles 2006 NY case.)

[Imalittleteapot]

MikeSchwiebert:
Oh well, I guess people that are infertile can't get married then. Oh wait, yes they can! Oh wait, that arguments already been made 8 billion times! Oh wait, that arguments already been debunked 8 billion times! OH WAIT! You already know it's been debunked 8 billion times!!! AND YOU USED IT ANYWAY! Hello?

Then you point to a court case? Hmm, Well, I'm not saying same sex marriage is wrong or right. Let's assume we don't know. However, we do know one of the answers is right. Either allowing same sex marriage is the right thing to do or allowing same sex marriage is the wrong thing to do right? It's got to be one of the others. Yet different countries, governments, and states have different laws. Some say same sex marriage is legal and some say sex marriage is not legal. Well, they can't both be right can they?

What did we just learn? That what the law says has nothing to do with what's wrong and right so I could give a crap about your court case because we're discussing what should be the law. Not what it is. DUH!

[MikeSchwiebert]

Imalitleteapot:
I understand your frustration and you make some good (albeit bombastic) points.
I agree that some of these are tired arguments, but if they are the arguments that the Supreme Court uses to uphold the current law then I think they are valid.

Although you could give a crap - as you say - about the current law, I think these court cases are important to the discussion because we are talking about the legal definition of marriage.

My personal opinion is that it is ludicrous. For example, my daughter is getting ready to enter College. What if I think it is discriminatory for scholarships to be available to Native Americans Cherokees that she cannot get; therefore, I decide to change the definition of what it means to be a Cherokee to include her. That would be idiotic. Words mean things legally, practically, historically (and probably many other "allys" I cannot think of). Marriage does not, has never, cannot by definition include something in its definition that is antithetical to what it actually is. But that is what some people want. I say, too bad; tough cookies. I don't really care that some governments are doing this.

I know that this is not an argument that everyone agrees with and that "has been debunked 8 billion times" (but not debunked in the Supreme Court). You have valid opinions that you have expressed on this board. I am OK with states taking it to a vote to determine in our society what kind of a society we will be. I do not want this on the federal level because I stand with the enumerated powers of the constitution for our federal government. I also do not agree with a federal marriage act that supports my views on marriage.

None of us discuss this in a vacuum. As one half of an interracial marriage, I find it upsetting to use interracial marriage as a support for same-sex marriage. It is insulting, careless, illogical, and not legally applicable. One does not have to change the definition of the word "marriage" to marry a person of another race. But to some people this is the ultimate argument. How offensive. I only bring up the court case because they tried to use this very argument to support same-sex marriage and the court rejected it. There is no new evidence that would reverse this decision.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you distill the argument to right and wrong. How do we decide right and wrong? We have current legal definitions but seek to change those according to some other criteria.
It seems to me that one can choose right and wrong from a religious belief or ultimately just from personal preference. This is why we get to vote on these things.

But I think the law has everything to do with what we in America believe is right or wrong.