Quantcast

Google Reiterates Proposition 8 Opposition

Calls for Support

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:
[ Life]

Sergey BrinGoogle is calling for Proposition 8 opposition support. A post on the Official Google Blog talks about the company’s opposition to legislation that eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry. Back in September, Google Co-founder Sergey Brin posted this:

As an Internet company, Google is an active participant in policy debates surrounding information access, technology and energy. Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions — Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay — we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on.

However, while there are many objections to this proposition — further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text — it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 — we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.

The new post talks about how Google has signed an amicus brief in support of several cases currently challenging Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court. "Denying employees basic rights isn’t right, and it isn’t good for businesses," says Google General Counsel Kent Walker. "We are committed to preserving fundamental rights for every one of the people who work hard to make Google a success."

Google wants to make it very clear where they stand on the issue, and obviously has its employees in mind. Google is reaching out for further support.

Google Reiterates Proposition 8 Opposition
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • Guest

    I would have thought Google would have thought better than to get involved in this. We let the voters decide and that they did. Society did was was best for society. Time to move on now…

    • Corey

      What I find absurd in the statement ” We let the voters decide and we should respect their decision” is that never before in the history of our country has the majority been given by vote the right of dictating the rights of a minority or others. It has always been the role of the courts to protect the rights of the minority, as they did when they agreed that homosexual couples had the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. Since then they (the courts) have been the target of attacks from religious conservatives labeling them “activist judges.” These types of basic rights issues have always been decided by Judges. Imagine if African Americans had to ask the voters to grant them their freedom. Imagine if Women had to ask the voters (all men at the time) to grant women the right to vote. Imagine if an Interracial Couple had to ask the voters to grant them the right to marry. These are all issues that were first decided in the Courts by Judges against the overwhelming opposition of the voting public. Using the same argument then as is being used now, I think it safe to assume that African Americans, Women, and Interracial Couples would still be waiting to win their rights in the voting booth. The moral of the story is that sometimes “the people” don’t always know what is correct or fair and shouldn’t be given the authority to decide what is or isn’t when it pertains to the rights of another.

    • Guest

      The tradition that this country has held to regarding mariage is one between a man and a woman. In this debate, no one is actually being discriminated against individually (when it comes to marriage), because marriage is a joint agreement and any man or woman of and race, creed, religion, majority, or minority is afforded the opportunity to marry. The problem then is one of who can marry who. But the American way has been up to this point one been between a man and a woman and reflects the values of the greater populace. My question is, are we not forcing a change in our nation by redefining this institution of ours: marriage? Are we not forcing a majority who has come to recognize what marriage is, who has a voice, and wants to preserve this institution that is peculiar to a man and a woman, to change? And is it right to force them to change? How come the voice of the majority has to be squelched, yet the majority’s heard? Where is the fairness in that? Those married men and woman throughout the history of this nation have preserved and strengthened this institution, and have the right to continue to do so by speaking up. It seems to me at its core, this is an issue of perceived equality. Homosexuals want to have the same perceived equality by being included under the title of marriage. But will they truly be able do so? Will it be enough once they find out that the stigma may yet remain? I understand what they are fighting for, and find it noble. And they have every right afforded by this great nation to do so. But if the conclusion is consistently one of opposition against their inclusion within ‘marriage,’ maybe it is time to seek other avenues to gaining what they want. Maybe it is time to birth and fight for an institution of their own. Maybe it is time to lay down the banner of redefining one word, and picking up another to define as their own.

      In saying this, I am also a bit disappointed with Google for turning a blind eye and taking sides. Until their position changes I will no longer be using Googles services.

      • Tom

        Well put, I agree

  • http://www.associatedcontent.com/melpol Guest

    Most people are good to their families but many will not give a dime or shelter to strangers. Things will soon change because plans are being made to train a million unfortunate souls to knock on doors across the U.S. begging for food and shelter. Have no fear because they will not demand sex— that is your choice. Do not close your heart when you hear that knock but open the door wide it might lead to a new friend and a big tax deduction.

  • http://pimpmypagerank.com Stu

    Interesting that they are happy to support gay marriage in the US whilst at the same time happy to support censorship in China….

    • Jake, Sacramento CA

      I agree with Stu completely, and disagree with Google on this matter. Homosexual marriage never has been a given right. Marriage defined is between a human male and human female. Perversions of the definition will be resisted by those of us that believe in the nuclear family–our societal building block. Without a father and a mother, individuals are at a major disadvantage: 40+ years of social science and our prison populations can fully attest to it. God bless and preserve America’s faithful families. I know I will defend such.

    • Guest

      I’m not using Google anymore either. I think the Mormons are right all the way. Gays trying to redefine marriage…come on people, California’s not stupid. Nor will we let the courts dictate the law from the bench…we’ve spoken-ONCE AND ONCE ONLY.

      • Gary Gilbert

        The Mormons are right all the way? Are you kidding me? Do you know ANYTHING about the Mormon church?! Read The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, as well as anything that you can get your hands on about Brigham Young and Joseph Smith and THEN tell me you can align yourself with them. Yikes!

        Mormons are free to practice their religion as they will, but I really do wish that they would stay out of my business.

    • Gary Gilbert

      why is that interesting?

  • John

    I believe that with this attitude Google earn more respect with everyone.
    Not that Google does is by chance, it decided to enter into a question behind it is because there is always a benefit.

  • Gary Gilbert

    Thanks to the folks at Google for standing up for the most basic of human rights…the right to equality.

    To the naysayers, all I can say is this – mind your own business. If some heterosexuals would pay as much attention to their own marriages as they have paid to my (potential) marriage, perhaps they would stay married longer. With the divorce rate being what it is, I hardly think that most (and it truly is most) heterosexual married folks have a right to speak on the topic.

    If you are one who doesn’t believe that it’s right for people of the same sex to marry, then do your part and don’t marry a person of the same sex.

    It wasn’t all that long ago that the same right wing uber-religious types were shouting pretty much the same thing about interracial marriage…so boo to them, again.

    It’s been going on far too long, this sick interest of the religious right in the gay agenda. For some reason, these folks just love to sit around and get all hyped up about what we’re doing and who we’re doing it with. If they would redirect all of that energy into something worthwhile like feeding the homeless, volunteering at an abused women’s shelter, helping sick/injured children, cleaning up the trash on the streets, helping a neighbor or family member in need, mowing the grass, washing the car…whatever…just do SOMETHING of value, not something that is, ultimately, going to be a losing battle for y’all.

    Oh, and quit reading that Ann Coulter by the way. She’s just selling books and making lots of money. She doesn’t really believe all of that junk she’s selling.

  • Oregonian

    First -
    I am disgusted that Google has the chutzpah to say “we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues” and then immediately turn around and take a position against the majority of California voters – against the fundamental structure of the a constitutional republic which explicitly provides for the People to amend their constitution. I only wish that there were more options to Google, but that’s almost like saying I want to buy a webcam that is not made in China. It doesn’t matter how much I despise slave labor that is funding military weapons that are targeted against my country – I either buy Chinese or go without. But then again Google is already on record as supporting Chinese censorship, so I shouldn’t be surprised to see them aligning with anti-democratic ideals at home.

    I will be back to post my experiences with other search engines – and to look for other’s experiences and recommendations.

    Second –
    Corey wrote: What I find absurd in the statement ” We let the voters decide and we should respect their decision” is that never before in the history of our country has the majority been given by vote the right of dictating the rights of a minority or others.

    “Never before”? That depends on what he means by “the rights of a minority”. Perhaps the closest parallel (contradicting Corey) is the conditions forced upon Utah to join the Union, since that included marriage laws. A much larger minority of smokers have seen their rights extinguished systematically by both courts and legislatures. And in many places the fundamental right to vote has been revoked for that minority in the class “felon”.

    And then there is the perspective that everyone still has the right to marriage – but not the right to redefine the word.

    Finally there is the question of why the minority should have the right to rescind the rights of the majority. This constitutional amendment was already in process when the Supremes stepped in and pontificated earlier in 2008. Their hubris will come to a sorry end regardless of which way they turn now.

  • Oregonian

    I did a quick look and found
    – my Firefox browser lets me choose Yahoo or Ask instead of Google as my standard search engine – up by the URL line
    – there is something called GoodSearch which may or may not give all the money it claims to charity. But at least it is not giving money to oppose the right of the people to amend the constitution.

    I will be back to report on my experience after I have used these for a few days.