This Site Has Moved
The posts found here are still available for archival purposes and to avoid broken links, but comments are now turned off and there will be no future updates. For all the latest from New America, please go to www.NewAmerica.net
About this Blog
Direct democracy -- the Switzerland-inspired system of initiatives, referenda and recalls that allows voters to make and repeal laws in 24 states -- is poorly understood. It isn’t even very direct. Direct democracy has become blockbuster democracy: a half-billion-dollar international industry of signature gatherers, consultants, and election lawyers who use ballot measures less as a method of making law and more as a tool of mega-communications to boost some politicians, hurt others, and supplement lobbying campaigns.
Blockbuster democracy is a decentralized business that practices wide-open politics. This blog aims to provide a center of news, analysis and conversation for and about the industry. We will report from blockbuster democracy’s capital -- California -- but we’ll monitor ballot measures from across the country and around the globe.
Your Blogger: Joe Mathews is an
User login
Google: No on 8
In a blog post, Google co-founder Sergey Brin says the company opposes Prop 8, the California initiative to ban same-sex marriage. A handful of other companies have taken similar stances, and expect others to do as well. This isn't entirely new. In 2004, a number of corporations and corporate leaders opposed same-sex marriage bans in several states. One of the arguments; that the bans could make it harder for businesses in states with bans to recruit and retain the best employees. Brin's explanation also refers to workers, writing, "it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8." (Full disclosure: Google chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt is the chair of New America's board).
- Login to post comments
Track This This is sad. It's
Track This
This is sad. It's the modern version of "church and state", now its multinational companies and politics mixing where they shouldn't.
"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." (Google blog)
This argument with exactly this same words could be used to support marriage between an adult and a minor, and polygamy, and even forced marriages. Something is very wrong here.
I am getting quite frustrated with the amount of people thinking that issue is about equality. It's not. Equality has already been achieved. All adults have the right to marry an adult of the opposite biological sex, regardless of sexual orientation. There is no discrimination. What most people in the gay/lesbian/transgendaral/etc camp want is to redefine marriage, and to give, not just themselves, but everyone extra rights, ie, the right to marry an adult of the same biological sex. They want extra rights for everyone, not a right that everyone but them already has.
So it's not about equality at all. It's about the definition of marriage, something I don't think Google as a multinational company should have an official policy on.
Jamnastic is wrong. Equality is right.
The troll above has posted the exact same comment demonstrating their lack of understanding of the issue with excluding a right to a specific set of people on multiple different blogs. Take a look at the wonderful well thought out response on this one:
http://denrose.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/google-this/
I love how the bigots try and twist this
The California Supreme Court recognized the fundamental right of ADULTS to marry under the California Constitution. This does not open the door for an adult and a child to marry; this does not open the door for a man and his goat, or whatever the bigots keep saying, to marry, and certain doesn't open the door for polygamy.
This is not redefining marriage in any way, shape or form. It is simply expanding marriage to include same-sex couples.
Google employes a vast variety of people; its stock is owned by a vast variety of people. It makes sense that the company's leadership supports equal rights.
@Jamnastic The right a gay
@Jamnastic
The right a gay person technically has to marry someone of the opposite sex is relatively meaningless - the innate nature of being homosexual would preclude someone engaging in such a union from ever enjoying the full benefits of it (companionship, emotional stability, and, yes, sexual satisfaction, among a whole host of others). Thus, this union would be, in and of itself, unequal and unfair. Equality is a mandate guaranteed by our Constitution, so think twice before you so quickly pooh-pooh it. It is among the bedrock principles upon which we have founded our nation.
Your arguments against same-sex marriage would, and in many places currently do, prevent our society from extending very valuable protections and responsibilities to otherwise "normal" people. Most of the people who share your beliefs do so because their faith tradition or cultural upbringing prohibit any sexuality other than that prescribed by the tradition. How is it anyone else's responsibility to live up to a tradition they have not, and have no interest in being, indoctrinated into? How can you possibly excuse leaving thousands of families across the country - families, many of whom have children - out of the legal protections they need to stay healthy?
Seriously - what's up with that?