8 ms·

Google backs gay marriage

85 points by kirubakaran 18y ago

froo 18y ago
To me, this boils down to a few simple points. Should Sergey have posted this on the official company blog? Probably not Do I support his position even though I'm not gay? Sure do. Are people blowing this way out of proportion? Absolutely.
michael_browne 18y ago
First of all, I think those who brought up the question of why THIS issue when there are other, more life-and-death serious problems in the world (such as AIDS orphans in Africa) are missing the point. Sergey didn’t decide to come out in opposition to prop 8 because he was just looking for some social cause to throw Google behind or because he thought it was necessarily the most pressing or deserving issue, but because it is something that will directly affect the company and the employees he is in charge of and responsible for. As he states, it "is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8." Clearly, this decision was made not because Sergey believes that banning same-sex marriage is wrong in the larger moral sense (though obviously he does) but instead because of the comparatively specific, micro concern of how it well effect the people who work at his company. While Google surely puts more thought into how its practices affect society than the average giant corporation, it is hardly a charity and I don’t think this statement should be any indication that it plans on becoming one. "Don't be evil" is still a long way on the altruism scale from becoming a humanitarian NGO. ... Is it, though, appropriate for a head of a public company to officially align said company on a piece of controversial (and not strictly relevant to the business) legislation? Well, perhaps not. In this situation however, I think it was an admirable and fitting action. It reinforces Google’s "not business as usual" stance and commitment to social awareness and doing good. Of course, though, there will be many who see this as the opposite of "doing good." The values of tolerance, diversity, and meritocratic inclusion are, though, so fundamental to the company (and, when at its best, the Valley and the tech industry in general) that this seems like a natural and reasonable move. Though I agree there is certainly room for argument, particularly over specifics, here, many will surely see opposition to Prop. 8 as reflective of the above values. I took Sergey’s blog post as more a statement of "live and let live" and respect for all than as a focused and specific endorsement of gay marriage. I don't work at Google but I do live in the Bay Area and I'm confident that the employee culture at the company is such that those with strong feelings against gay rights are used to keeping their position largely to themselves. In other words, conservative Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Sikh/etc. individuals who work there have, I’m sure, resigned to keep their religious convictions a personal matter in order to effectively and civilly participate in a diverse environment. Consequently, I would be surprised if this pronouncement causes much of a stir even from pro-Prop. 8 Googlers.
- mattjaynes 18y ago
  Wow, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Seriously, great points. On a lighter note - I guess if we can get more AIDS orphans to work at Google, it would shift priorities ;)
sgrove 18y ago
Wow! One generally doesn't expect that out of a corporation, much less from google. I'm very much impressed, and at the same time pleased with their stance. I do wonder if I would be similarly impressed with it if their stance were the opposite, and whether I would feel comfortable supporting them by using their products and services afterward. Very gutsy decision to come out on a divisive issue like this.
- qqq 18y ago
  > much less from google Why?
  - migpwr 18y ago
    it's probably because of the size of the company and what they're risking by having an opinion on this non-business issue.
    - sgrove 18y ago
      Exactly. Breaking it down, what do they gain? Possibly some good will of the more liberal users. But powerful religious figures could just as easily (and almost certainly will) turn it into something of a pr nightmare that will ultimately affect some of google's users.
    - neilk 18y ago
      Even Disney has gay events at their parks. It doesn't get more corporate/"family friendly" than that.
- samson 18y ago
  I for one am not so impressed by Google's stance, at least not yet. Is the annoncement coming from Google(US) where it is less risky to take such a stance, or Google worldwide where value driven actions such as these would not be as appreicated in certain regions. An example already brought up, is Google stance on issues related to China, where they've not been so resilent in keeping with their own values. If Google wants to play this hand, thats fine, I even hope they take up bigger causes like human rights, and back it up with actions. But a two paragraph blog post simply will not do for me.
staunch 18y ago
I wonder how much shit Sergey is going to take for this. Will it be enough to stop him from doing similar things in the future? The day Google stops being able to do surprisingly/crazy things like this is the beginning of the end.
- oldgregg 18y ago
  Yeah could be a real shit storm. I see a massive uprising in the valley while the SFPD sends an invading army into mountain view... courageous.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  If I were a shareholder, I wouldn't want my company to be running around taking stands on social issues unrelated to the business of the company. Let Sergey advocate against proposition 8 in his private life if he feels that strongly about it.
  - DaniFong 18y ago
    The founders, their ethics, morals, and actions are in many senses responsible for the culture they have created and the products therefrom. They didn't even try to monetize Google in the first period: they were just trying to make good technology, and help people out. You cannot extinguish this one flame without extinguishing others.
  - wheels 18y ago
    Agreed. I even removed my political affiliation from my Facebook profile since I'm "friends" with a number of business contacts there and I'd rather their opinion of our business not be formed by my personal political views.
    - kirubakaran 18y ago
      http://xkcd.com/137/ http://xkcd.com/137/
      - 18y ago
jwilliams 18y ago
Personally, I have some concerns over this approach. Google is a mediator between users and information. As such, it's really important to have and appear to have as little bias as possible - otherwise it taints the information that is coming through. To be effective as a tool, Google really needs to be transparent and impartial as possible. (See Google in China as a counterexample). Also, I question how effective this approach would be. I'm not sure many people that oppose gay marriage would be swayed by Google's statement... I mean, Google has a strong brand, but I really doubt people will vote no because "Google says so" in the same way as they would with say, Oprah. I think there are other advocacy paths that are more effective, and don't spend Google's brand/position in this way.
- jfarmer 18y ago
  Yep, being brave is hard and has risks. Personally I'm glad Google is still willing to take them.
  - jwilliams 18y ago
    I wasn't arguing on the stance - just their approach. There is no point taking a risk if there is no reward. I just don't see this as an action that would change people's minds. I just believe Google has much better avenues for advocacy than this approach.
    - rms 18y ago
      I don't think this is about making an actual splash. Maybe it was done for the benefit of the Google employees? I would be surprised if this is noticed by the national media.
      - SapphireSun 18y ago
        Almost definitely. Brin stated:"...it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8." A company isn't just a profit machine. People live and work there to a degree. He probably saw some injustices in his company, and wanted to make a strong statement about how employees should be treated.
jdelsman 18y ago
Get rid of "marriage", and this whole mess would be a moot point. :) But, anyway, go Google!
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- silencio 18y ago
  $deity forbid gay people have the same rights as married couples without calling it a marriage. I have a feeling some people would still be offended like their own personal marriages would be under attack even if you removed all trace of "marriage" for gay couples. Don't forget that couple that got offended at the removal of "bride" and "groom" on their wedding license: http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1239279.html http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1239279.html
patrickg-zill 18y ago
Did they donate money to one side or the other, or did they only express an "official" opinion? And how would a person who was supporting Prop8 (say, a practicing Orthodox Jew, a Tibetan Buddhist, a Muslim, a Sikh, or a Christian, all faiths which explicitly proscribe homosexual behavior) feel about working at Google after hearing this?
- wheels 18y ago
  Half of those also ban eating pork, but I suspect there's not been an uprise in the Google cafeteria.
- Niten 18y ago
  How would they feel about working at Google after hearing this? There are two possibilities... 1) Said Orthodox Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc., while privately disapproving of gay marriage, recognizes that his right to be offended ends where my rights begin. Said employee does not wish to shove his own personal brand of "morality" down everyone else's throats by codifying discrimination into the State Constitution, and therefore has no issue with Google's stance on the matter. Or, 2) Said Orthodox Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc., is upset with his employer because said employee feels he should be entitled to infringe upon the human rights of others. Said employee is free to leave Google, as he is doubtless of little value to the company, or to society in general.
  - gscott 18y ago
    Google employees should be careful to not mention that they are "Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc". If they want to keep their jobs they need to align themselves with company policy.
carpo 18y ago
To someone who thinks that gay marriage is about equality, this could be seen as similar to a companies stance on racism or slavery (which is obvious now, but wasn't a hundred years ago). If Google believe that in the future people will look back on this issue in the same way, then this could also be a savvy business position. Also, in the eyes of Sergey, this is probably just another way for Google to not be evil.
makecheck 18y ago
Google is helping people to see that these decisions have far-reaching effects. Google is pretty confident that the vast majority of people like its products. So now you have to ask yourself: is it wise to cast a vote that would insult a large percentage of the people responsible for making the products you love so much?
- astine 18y ago
  I would argue that they are more dependant on us than we are on them.
geuis 18y ago
Good on ya Sergey Brin. Its nice to see a company taking official support in regards to the things that affect their employees in non-work situations. And for those saying companies don't take sides or make announcements, lets name a couple. Chick-fil-a is closed on Sundays. Why, because the founder is a hard-right Christian who thinks everyone should go to church or they go to hell. I worked there when I was a teenager, firsthand experience. How about Dominos? The founder built a town outside of Naples in Florida strictly for Christians. Ava Maria, I think its called. And don't forget SC Johnson, "a family company". Jeesh.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  I believe that Chick-Fil-A is a private company. The Dominoes guy probably built that town without using company funds. There are good reasons for keeping one's personal life personal. If Sergey's comments cause a lot of controversy, I wouldn't be surprised if Google saw successful shareholder lawsuits. Using your company to comment on social issues is not acting in the fiduciary interest of your shareholders.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- tbrooks 18y ago
  When is the last time you saw Chick-fil-A write their political stance on their corporate blog?
  - jmatt 18y ago
    Excellent point. Never. Neither does In-N-Out, another privately owned "openly" christian company. Staying private is one good way to alleviate issues with upset share holders and continuing to passively support the owners beliefs. This is fine as long as the company still respects the rights of the share holders, customers and employees. As many have already stated, and i'll reiterate. There are two issues being discussed here. 1) gay rights. [no question they should have equal rights] 2) entangling support for social issues with a public company [this is where people have problems]. All the publicly held multi-national companies that I know of offer benefits to a homosexual partner. But they do it through the normal workflow of HR. The problem is Google does everything differently. Including making this announcement. So the question remains is this an acceptable way to do it? Google thinks so. (now my libertarian free market tendancies come in to play) If you support the way they did it, buy some more Google and give them a positive blog article. If you disagree sell it or short it and go use duckduckgo or yahoo.
mattjaynes 18y ago
Dear Sergey - You're surely aware of how divisive this issue is by just looking at the polling on this matter. By taking a hard stand on a very divisive issue on behalf of your whole company, you are spending an enormous amount of your Google brand and influence on this issue. Right? According to gaydemographics.org, there are less than 100,000 gay couples in California. Let's assume all of them want to get married. Let's also assume, which I think is reasonable, that those gay couples wanting to get married are already cohabiting, have plenty of food, have shelter, have access to world class health care etc - and after this huge expenditure of Google influence and brand change, that will be the same - but they might have a marriage certificate. So, I just wonder why you chose that issue over this issue - that of AIDS orphans in Africa (unfortunately that label often hides the fact that these are real living breathing children). According to one.org, there are 12 million children who have lost BOTH parents to AIDS and are on their own now. This is a rapidly growing problem and there are estimated to be 25 million AIDS orphans by 2010. The sheer scale of this disaster is mind-boggling - yet it's mostly an information problem that needs to be solved. These children need parents. There are many couples around the world that are eager for children. Who better than Google to find a solution? For many of these children, adoption would mean hope where now there is only despair. As impactful as a marriage certificate would be to 100,000 gay couples in one of the richest states of the richest country - I'm guessing an adoption certificate would be tremendously more valuable to these children who are truly destitute. And I'm also guessing this would be much more inspirational and unifying to Google's share-holders and users. In deciding on where to spend your resources, I would suggest watching this: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global... and reading this (the irony is not lost on me): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118124139854628069.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118124139854628069.html I can understand the draw to be edgy and controversial, but sometimes the causes which are most worthy also are the least popular. I applaud the work the Google Foundation is doing, don't get me wrong - but please consider the costs vs benefits to Google in working towards these two pieces of paper I mentioned: the gay marriage license for wealthy westerners or the adoption certificate for a destitute, yet living breathing child who has lost both parents in Africa. Cheers, Matt
- bdr 18y ago
gm 18y ago
Ok Google... Keep it up and stand up to China... You got people's attention, now get governments' attention...
bdr 18y ago
For all of you who are worried about your stock price: don't forget to consider what effect this has on Google's culture. From a business perspective, if you look only at the external effects, taking this stand probably does weigh out to a bad idea. But the internal benefits of employee loyalty and a culture of tolerance might outweigh that, making the blog post justified even from your strictly financial perspective.
epi0Bauqu 18y ago
Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions -- Democrats and Republicans, Please, isn't Google made up of 99% Democrats? I'm all for gay marriage, but that is a misrepresentation. One Republican does not make great diversity.
- epi0Bauqu 18y ago
  This is obviously old, but a start at some data: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-02-13-google-give-usat_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-02-...
- rsheridan6 18y ago
  What about libertarians? I don't know of any at Google (except for that guy who wants to build a libertarian city on an offshore platform), but I do know that they're highly overrepresented among hackers.
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
As the father of a gay son who one day wants to marry, I am opposed to same-sex marriage. The word "marriage" has significant religious and cultural significance and this significance should be preserved. Same-sex unions with all of the benefits? Sign me up. More significantly, I disagree with Google's taking a position on this issue. I think corporations should think seriously about taking positions in domestic, cultural issues. Civil rights issues? Go for it. Changing the definition of religious terms? Out of bounds. I'm not religious, but this seems to make the most sense in my own life. Google should do the same. If Google wants to wade into politics, then welcome to the party. I'm sure they are comfortable with the results of becoming political -- when people with opposing views make and change the laws in order to diminish Google's political power. That's the way politics works. I'm also concerned with idealists who only whine about things that are easy and never take a stand where they could make a real difference or where it could really hurt. What about billions in China not getting the full internet? Well, to listen to Google that's a much more complex subject. Right.
- maur33n 18y ago
  I am opposed to our government getting involved in marriage, period. Gays nor straights should have to turn to the government to have their unions blessed. But since straights have such advantages given to them as a result of our legal system, it would be silly not to have the rights given to all. Marriage is NOT a religious construct. It is a construct granted because of other dependent bodies of law, including taxes, health care, child custody, property rights. Without marriage laws to assist, it is more difficult to have our courts administer the other dependent laws. You are therefore denying gays equal access to the legal system and its protections as a result. You have the right to believe in whatever you want. You do not have the right, in MY country, to deny other human beings rights or protections that others have. Go to church all you want. Just leave me out of your bigotry.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    I'm not religious -- perhaps you missed that point. Marriage is deeply a religious idea. Religions and their ideas of marriage pre-date all existing governments and other social structures. Therefore it would be silly to make an argument that marriage is government-based: it's not. Governments simply codified and wrote into law those commonly-held ideas of marriage. Later on, as society became more complex, sure, other rights were given based on these definitions. Civil Unions offer all of the advantages of marriage without getting into a cultural war (unless you want to do that). Sounds like you enjoy feeling very self-righteous about your beliefs, ie, the whole "in MY country" routine. I wouldn't want to deny rights to anybody. Why don't you calm down a bit and realize that you're trying to argue with somebody who basically agrees with you? And don't call me a bigot. You don't know me, and based on your post you don't even understand my position on the issue. It's an ad hominem.
mattjaynes 18y ago
The primary argument for gay "marriage" seems to be equal rights for both gay couples and married couples. Another key argument I keep hearing is to "keep government out of the bedroom." Couldn't both of those goals be accomplished without getting into a cultural war over the term "marriage"? If "civil unions" are legislated to having the same rights as marriage - then that solves the equality problem. Also, "civil unions" can have a much looser definition. So if there is a threesome of men that really love each other and want to make a life commitment to each other and have equal rights as a married couple, they could do so. However, with gay "marriage" that would not be possible unless it also included plural marriage - and given our nation's history that's pretty unlikely. "Civil Unions" just seem to be much more flexible in preserving rights of people in minority situations. Even for non-homosexuals. I had good friends who were cousins in their 50's and had lived together non-sexually for over 30 years. They were inseparable and they shared all their resources. When one of them had a brain tumor and was in the hospital, fortunately because they lived in Germany, it was no issue, but if they had lived in the US, there would have been issues with visiting, etc from what I hear. For them "marriage" would not be something they wanted obviously, but it would have made their lives much easier in many situations if they could have had a "civil union". So, I'm all for having equal rights and government out of the bedroom, but gay marriage just doesn't seem to be the right solution for those two goals. 1) It leaves out other very legitimate situations where companions - either non-sexual or plural arrangements would not have equal rights, and 2) it starts a divisive cultural war that could be avoided. Peace and love right?
- cbrinker 18y ago
  So you support "seperate but equal?" That was the winning attitude of our nation for about a century; and that turned out just dandy! Why should polygamy or polyandry be outlawed? If multiple people feel they love each other enough that they wish to be bound by the legal act of marriage, who are you to say otherwise? Who does it hurt? This concept of marriage and single sex partners is not only anti-evolutionary, but is only backed by religious nonsense. Granted some animals wish to be this way, but why should anyone say others cannot?
  - khafra 18y ago

85 points by kirubakaran 18y ago

froo 18y ago

To me, this boils down to a few simple points. Should Sergey have posted this on the official company blog? Probably not Do I support his position even though I'm not gay? Sure do. Are people blowing this way out of proportion? Absolutely.

michael_browne 18y ago

First of all, I think those who brought up the question of why THIS issue when there are other, more life-and-death serious problems in the world (such as AIDS orphans in Africa) are missing the point. Sergey didn’t decide to come out in opposition to prop 8 because he was just looking for some social cause to throw Google behind or because he thought it was necessarily the most pressing or deserving issue, but because it is something that will directly affect the company and the employees he is in charge of and responsible for. As he states, it "is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8." Clearly, this decision was made not because Sergey believes that banning same-sex marriage is wrong in the larger moral sense (though obviously he does) but instead because of the comparatively specific, micro concern of how it well effect the people who work at his company. While Google surely puts more thought into how its practices affect society than the average giant corporation, it is hardly a charity and I don’t think this statement should be any indication that it plans on becoming one. "Don't be evil" is still a long way on the altruism scale from becoming a humanitarian NGO. ... Is it, though, appropriate for a head of a public company to officially align said company on a piece of controversial (and not strictly relevant to the business) legislation? Well, perhaps not. In this situation however, I think it was an admirable and fitting action. It reinforces Google’s "not business as usual" stance and commitment to social awareness and doing good. Of course, though, there will be many who see this as the opposite of "doing good." The values of tolerance, diversity, and meritocratic inclusion are, though, so fundamental to the company (and, when at its best, the Valley and the tech industry in general) that this seems like a natural and reasonable move. Though I agree there is certainly room for argument, particularly over specifics, here, many will surely see opposition to Prop. 8 as reflective of the above values. I took Sergey’s blog post as more a statement of "live and let live" and respect for all than as a focused and specific endorsement of gay marriage. I don't work at Google but I do live in the Bay Area and I'm confident that the employee culture at the company is such that those with strong feelings against gay rights are used to keeping their position largely to themselves. In other words, conservative Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Sikh/etc. individuals who work there have, I’m sure, resigned to keep their religious convictions a personal matter in order to effectively and civilly participate in a diverse environment. Consequently, I would be surprised if this pronouncement causes much of a stir even from pro-Prop. 8 Googlers.

mattjaynes 18y ago
Wow, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Seriously, great points. On a lighter note - I guess if we can get more AIDS orphans to work at Google, it would shift priorities ;)

sgrove 18y ago

Wow! One generally doesn't expect that out of a corporation, much less from google. I'm very much impressed, and at the same time pleased with their stance. I do wonder if I would be similarly impressed with it if their stance were the opposite, and whether I would feel comfortable supporting them by using their products and services afterward. Very gutsy decision to come out on a divisive issue like this.

qqq 18y ago
> much less from google Why?
- migpwr 18y ago
  it's probably because of the size of the company and what they're risking by having an opinion on this non-business issue.
  - sgrove 18y ago
    Exactly. Breaking it down, what do they gain? Possibly some good will of the more liberal users. But powerful religious figures could just as easily (and almost certainly will) turn it into something of a pr nightmare that will ultimately affect some of google's users.
  - neilk 18y ago
    Even Disney has gay events at their parks. It doesn't get more corporate/"family friendly" than that.
samson 18y ago
I for one am not so impressed by Google's stance, at least not yet. Is the annoncement coming from Google(US) where it is less risky to take such a stance, or Google worldwide where value driven actions such as these would not be as appreicated in certain regions. An example already brought up, is Google stance on issues related to China, where they've not been so resilent in keeping with their own values. If Google wants to play this hand, thats fine, I even hope they take up bigger causes like human rights, and back it up with actions. But a two paragraph blog post simply will not do for me.

staunch 18y ago

I wonder how much shit Sergey is going to take for this. Will it be enough to stop him from doing similar things in the future? The day Google stops being able to do surprisingly/crazy things like this is the beginning of the end.

oldgregg 18y ago
Yeah could be a real shit storm. I see a massive uprising in the valley while the SFPD sends an invading army into mountain view... courageous.
Prrometheus 18y ago
If I were a shareholder, I wouldn't want my company to be running around taking stands on social issues unrelated to the business of the company. Let Sergey advocate against proposition 8 in his private life if he feels that strongly about it.
- DaniFong 18y ago
  The founders, their ethics, morals, and actions are in many senses responsible for the culture they have created and the products therefrom. They didn't even try to monetize Google in the first period: they were just trying to make good technology, and help people out. You cannot extinguish this one flame without extinguishing others.
- wheels 18y ago
  Agreed. I even removed my political affiliation from my Facebook profile since I'm "friends" with a number of business contacts there and I'd rather their opinion of our business not be formed by my personal political views.
  - kirubakaran 18y ago
    http://xkcd.com/137/ http://xkcd.com/137/
    - 18y ago

jwilliams 18y ago

Personally, I have some concerns over this approach. Google is a mediator between users and information. As such, it's really important to have and appear to have as little bias as possible - otherwise it taints the information that is coming through. To be effective as a tool, Google really needs to be transparent and impartial as possible. (See Google in China as a counterexample). Also, I question how effective this approach would be. I'm not sure many people that oppose gay marriage would be swayed by Google's statement... I mean, Google has a strong brand, but I really doubt people will vote no because "Google says so" in the same way as they would with say, Oprah. I think there are other advocacy paths that are more effective, and don't spend Google's brand/position in this way.

jfarmer 18y ago
Yep, being brave is hard and has risks. Personally I'm glad Google is still willing to take them.
- jwilliams 18y ago
  I wasn't arguing on the stance - just their approach. There is no point taking a risk if there is no reward. I just don't see this as an action that would change people's minds. I just believe Google has much better avenues for advocacy than this approach.
  - rms 18y ago
    I don't think this is about making an actual splash. Maybe it was done for the benefit of the Google employees? I would be surprised if this is noticed by the national media.
    - SapphireSun 18y ago
      Almost definitely. Brin stated:"...it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8." A company isn't just a profit machine. People live and work there to a degree. He probably saw some injustices in his company, and wanted to make a strong statement about how employees should be treated.

jdelsman 18y ago

Get rid of "marriage", and this whole mess would be a moot point. :) But, anyway, go Google!

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
silencio 18y ago
$deity forbid gay people have the same rights as married couples without calling it a marriage. I have a feeling some people would still be offended like their own personal marriages would be under attack even if you removed all trace of "marriage" for gay couples. Don't forget that couple that got offended at the removal of "bride" and "groom" on their wedding license: http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1239279.html http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1239279.html

patrickg-zill 18y ago

Did they donate money to one side or the other, or did they only express an "official" opinion? And how would a person who was supporting Prop8 (say, a practicing Orthodox Jew, a Tibetan Buddhist, a Muslim, a Sikh, or a Christian, all faiths which explicitly proscribe homosexual behavior) feel about working at Google after hearing this?

wheels 18y ago
Half of those also ban eating pork, but I suspect there's not been an uprise in the Google cafeteria.
Niten 18y ago
How would they feel about working at Google after hearing this? There are two possibilities... 1) Said Orthodox Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc., while privately disapproving of gay marriage, recognizes that his right to be offended ends where my rights begin. Said employee does not wish to shove his own personal brand of "morality" down everyone else's throats by codifying discrimination into the State Constitution, and therefore has no issue with Google's stance on the matter. Or, 2) Said Orthodox Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc., is upset with his employer because said employee feels he should be entitled to infringe upon the human rights of others. Said employee is free to leave Google, as he is doubtless of little value to the company, or to society in general.
- gscott 18y ago
  Google employees should be careful to not mention that they are "Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc". If they want to keep their jobs they need to align themselves with company policy.

carpo 18y ago

To someone who thinks that gay marriage is about equality, this could be seen as similar to a companies stance on racism or slavery (which is obvious now, but wasn't a hundred years ago). If Google believe that in the future people will look back on this issue in the same way, then this could also be a savvy business position. Also, in the eyes of Sergey, this is probably just another way for Google to not be evil.

makecheck 18y ago

Google is helping people to see that these decisions have far-reaching effects. Google is pretty confident that the vast majority of people like its products. So now you have to ask yourself: is it wise to cast a vote that would insult a large percentage of the people responsible for making the products you love so much?

astine 18y ago
I would argue that they are more dependant on us than we are on them.

geuis 18y ago

Good on ya Sergey Brin. Its nice to see a company taking official support in regards to the things that affect their employees in non-work situations. And for those saying companies don't take sides or make announcements, lets name a couple. Chick-fil-a is closed on Sundays. Why, because the founder is a hard-right Christian who thinks everyone should go to church or they go to hell. I worked there when I was a teenager, firsthand experience. How about Dominos? The founder built a town outside of Naples in Florida strictly for Christians. Ava Maria, I think its called. And don't forget SC Johnson, "a family company". Jeesh.

Prrometheus 18y ago
I believe that Chick-Fil-A is a private company. The Dominoes guy probably built that town without using company funds. There are good reasons for keeping one's personal life personal. If Sergey's comments cause a lot of controversy, I wouldn't be surprised if Google saw successful shareholder lawsuits. Using your company to comment on social issues is not acting in the fiduciary interest of your shareholders.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
tbrooks 18y ago
When is the last time you saw Chick-fil-A write their political stance on their corporate blog?
- jmatt 18y ago
  Excellent point. Never. Neither does In-N-Out, another privately owned "openly" christian company. Staying private is one good way to alleviate issues with upset share holders and continuing to passively support the owners beliefs. This is fine as long as the company still respects the rights of the share holders, customers and employees. As many have already stated, and i'll reiterate. There are two issues being discussed here. 1) gay rights. [no question they should have equal rights] 2) entangling support for social issues with a public company [this is where people have problems]. All the publicly held multi-national companies that I know of offer benefits to a homosexual partner. But they do it through the normal workflow of HR. The problem is Google does everything differently. Including making this announcement. So the question remains is this an acceptable way to do it? Google thinks so. (now my libertarian free market tendancies come in to play) If you support the way they did it, buy some more Google and give them a positive blog article. If you disagree sell it or short it and go use duckduckgo or yahoo.

mattjaynes 18y ago

Dear Sergey - You're surely aware of how divisive this issue is by just looking at the polling on this matter. By taking a hard stand on a very divisive issue on behalf of your whole company, you are spending an enormous amount of your Google brand and influence on this issue. Right? According to gaydemographics.org, there are less than 100,000 gay couples in California. Let's assume all of them want to get married. Let's also assume, which I think is reasonable, that those gay couples wanting to get married are already cohabiting, have plenty of food, have shelter, have access to world class health care etc - and after this huge expenditure of Google influence and brand change, that will be the same - but they might have a marriage certificate. So, I just wonder why you chose that issue over this issue - that of AIDS orphans in Africa (unfortunately that label often hides the fact that these are real living breathing children). According to one.org, there are 12 million children who have lost BOTH parents to AIDS and are on their own now. This is a rapidly growing problem and there are estimated to be 25 million AIDS orphans by 2010. The sheer scale of this disaster is mind-boggling - yet it's mostly an information problem that needs to be solved. These children need parents. There are many couples around the world that are eager for children. Who better than Google to find a solution? For many of these children, adoption would mean hope where now there is only despair. As impactful as a marriage certificate would be to 100,000 gay couples in one of the richest states of the richest country - I'm guessing an adoption certificate would be tremendously more valuable to these children who are truly destitute. And I'm also guessing this would be much more inspirational and unifying to Google's share-holders and users. In deciding on where to spend your resources, I would suggest watching this: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global... and reading this (the irony is not lost on me): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118124139854628069.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118124139854628069.html I can understand the draw to be edgy and controversial, but sometimes the causes which are most worthy also are the least popular. I applaud the work the Google Foundation is doing, don't get me wrong - but please consider the costs vs benefits to Google in working towards these two pieces of paper I mentioned: the gay marriage license for wealthy westerners or the adoption certificate for a destitute, yet living breathing child who has lost both parents in Africa. Cheers, Matt

bdr 18y ago

gm 18y ago

Ok Google... Keep it up and stand up to China... You got people's attention, now get governments' attention...

bdr 18y ago

For all of you who are worried about your stock price: don't forget to consider what effect this has on Google's culture. From a business perspective, if you look only at the external effects, taking this stand probably does weigh out to a bad idea. But the internal benefits of employee loyalty and a culture of tolerance might outweigh that, making the blog post justified even from your strictly financial perspective.

epi0Bauqu 18y ago

Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions -- Democrats and Republicans, Please, isn't Google made up of 99% Democrats? I'm all for gay marriage, but that is a misrepresentation. One Republican does not make great diversity.

epi0Bauqu 18y ago
This is obviously old, but a start at some data: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-02-13-google-give-usat_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-02-...
rsheridan6 18y ago
What about libertarians? I don't know of any at Google (except for that guy who wants to build a libertarian city on an offshore platform), but I do know that they're highly overrepresented among hackers.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

As the father of a gay son who one day wants to marry, I am opposed to same-sex marriage. The word "marriage" has significant religious and cultural significance and this significance should be preserved. Same-sex unions with all of the benefits? Sign me up. More significantly, I disagree with Google's taking a position on this issue. I think corporations should think seriously about taking positions in domestic, cultural issues. Civil rights issues? Go for it. Changing the definition of religious terms? Out of bounds. I'm not religious, but this seems to make the most sense in my own life. Google should do the same. If Google wants to wade into politics, then welcome to the party. I'm sure they are comfortable with the results of becoming political -- when people with opposing views make and change the laws in order to diminish Google's political power. That's the way politics works. I'm also concerned with idealists who only whine about things that are easy and never take a stand where they could make a real difference or where it could really hurt. What about billions in China not getting the full internet? Well, to listen to Google that's a much more complex subject. Right.

maur33n 18y ago
I am opposed to our government getting involved in marriage, period. Gays nor straights should have to turn to the government to have their unions blessed. But since straights have such advantages given to them as a result of our legal system, it would be silly not to have the rights given to all. Marriage is NOT a religious construct. It is a construct granted because of other dependent bodies of law, including taxes, health care, child custody, property rights. Without marriage laws to assist, it is more difficult to have our courts administer the other dependent laws. You are therefore denying gays equal access to the legal system and its protections as a result. You have the right to believe in whatever you want. You do not have the right, in MY country, to deny other human beings rights or protections that others have. Go to church all you want. Just leave me out of your bigotry.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  I'm not religious -- perhaps you missed that point. Marriage is deeply a religious idea. Religions and their ideas of marriage pre-date all existing governments and other social structures. Therefore it would be silly to make an argument that marriage is government-based: it's not. Governments simply codified and wrote into law those commonly-held ideas of marriage. Later on, as society became more complex, sure, other rights were given based on these definitions. Civil Unions offer all of the advantages of marriage without getting into a cultural war (unless you want to do that). Sounds like you enjoy feeling very self-righteous about your beliefs, ie, the whole "in MY country" routine. I wouldn't want to deny rights to anybody. Why don't you calm down a bit and realize that you're trying to argue with somebody who basically agrees with you? And don't call me a bigot. You don't know me, and based on your post you don't even understand my position on the issue. It's an ad hominem.

mattjaynes 18y ago

The primary argument for gay "marriage" seems to be equal rights for both gay couples and married couples. Another key argument I keep hearing is to "keep government out of the bedroom." Couldn't both of those goals be accomplished without getting into a cultural war over the term "marriage"? If "civil unions" are legislated to having the same rights as marriage - then that solves the equality problem. Also, "civil unions" can have a much looser definition. So if there is a threesome of men that really love each other and want to make a life commitment to each other and have equal rights as a married couple, they could do so. However, with gay "marriage" that would not be possible unless it also included plural marriage - and given our nation's history that's pretty unlikely. "Civil Unions" just seem to be much more flexible in preserving rights of people in minority situations. Even for non-homosexuals. I had good friends who were cousins in their 50's and had lived together non-sexually for over 30 years. They were inseparable and they shared all their resources. When one of them had a brain tumor and was in the hospital, fortunately because they lived in Germany, it was no issue, but if they had lived in the US, there would have been issues with visiting, etc from what I hear. For them "marriage" would not be something they wanted obviously, but it would have made their lives much easier in many situations if they could have had a "civil union". So, I'm all for having equal rights and government out of the bedroom, but gay marriage just doesn't seem to be the right solution for those two goals. 1) It leaves out other very legitimate situations where companions - either non-sexual or plural arrangements would not have equal rights, and 2) it starts a divisive cultural war that could be avoided. Peace and love right?

cbrinker 18y ago
So you support "seperate but equal?" That was the winning attitude of our nation for about a century; and that turned out just dandy! Why should polygamy or polyandry be outlawed? If multiple people feel they love each other enough that they wish to be bound by the legal act of marriage, who are you to say otherwise? Who does it hurt? This concept of marriage and single sex partners is not only anti-evolutionary, but is only backed by religious nonsense. Granted some animals wish to be this way, but why should anyone say others cannot?
- khafra 18y ago