14 ms·

Google Announces Global Campaign To Legalize Gay Marriage

173 points by joeyespo 14y ago

cheez 14y ago
As long as companies are gonna be able to lobby, might as well lobby for good stuff.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  I don't disagree with your sentiment, but lobbying by nature is usually in regards to things that are not universally held beliefs.
  - alanh 14y ago
    Are you implying that pro-gay marriage sentiment is a universally held belief? Maybe amongst your peers, and that’s great. Globally, I’m not even sure if the sentiment has hit 50% yet. Edit: Apparently I mis-understood, but I’m not sure what the correct understanding is, exactly.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      No, that's precisely the opposite of what I said. In that, if Google is lobbying for it, then it must be something in contention enough to demand that they actively lobby for it.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    There are no universally held beliefs. Even for things that seem fairly solid, you can always find people in disagreement.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      Okay, I'll phrase it another way. If Google has to lobby for it, it's probably not as universally held as cheez seemed to be taking for granted.
      - corin_ 14y ago
        Does calling it "good stuff" imply universally held?
        yew 14y ago
        The statement that something is good, without further qualification, does tend to imply that it is universally held to be good. Albeit the two aren't necessarily synonymous. They tend to be taken as such in everyday conversation.
        corin_ 14y ago
        In my opinion "good" is subjective by default, not objective. Further, I would think that even when objectiveness is implied it would be that the speaker thinks it should be universally held, not that it necessarily is. Gay marriage is not universally supported, this we know. Do you personally think it is "good"? If not, does that mean you think it is the opposite, "bad", just because not everyone supports it?
        yew 14y ago
        Think of it as a matter of communication. Everyone (or at least almost everyone) is lobbying for 'good stuff,' so it's not a particularly useful statement to make all by itself. > Further, I would think that even when objectiveness is implied it would be that the speaker thinks it should be universally held, not that it necessarily is. Hence the two not being synonymous. Perhaps I simply happen to know an unusually large number of people who believe that moral correctness implies a convincing argument.
      - ktizo 14y ago
        I thought cheez was giving personal opinion, not speaking for the world. Is fairly obvious that it is not universally held to be good. The UN only recently removed homosexuality from the list of things states are not allowed to execute their citizens for and the arguments about gay marriage are currently tearing great holes in many of the major sects of christianity, accompanied by much public wailing and gnashing of teeth. To think that it was a universally held belief at this point in time would require an extremely restricted social circle and no access to any form of media, so given that cheez is posting on the intatubes, I doubt this is the case.
- smsm42 14y ago
  Did you ever see anybody lobbying for stuff they consider bad? Of course everybody lobbies for good stuff, just definitions of good stuff differ between people. Or you meant "As long as companies are gonna be able to lobby, might as well lobby for stuff I agree with"?
  - Nursie 14y ago
    Yup, all that lobbying to be able to carry on polluting air and waterways, to keep tobacco sales and advertising legal, the people doing those things thought they were good and pure too - right? There's lobbying that's evil, and the people doing it know it's evil, but it affects their bottom line so they do it anyway.
    - smsm42 14y ago
      Only way to not pollute air and waterways at all is to cease all industry and somehow dispose of the large percentage of the human population. Otherwise, they'd have some impact on the environment, it's inevitable. This impact can be bigger or lesser, and can be measured against they usefulness of what comes out of it. Of course, producers argue that their products are very useful and their impacts on the environment are minimal and well controlled. They may be wrong or misrepresenting how actually good is what they in fact do, but I never heard anybody arguing, for example "let's destroy the environment, to hell with it, who needs it anyway". Did you? Same for tobacco sales and advertising - of course, many people - especially those who enjoy smoking - think it is a good thing that it is legal. They also think it is a good thing that they, being sane adults, can choose how to behave and manage their own bodies and property. Some people think instead it is a good thing to deny certain people choice in what they can do with their bodies and their property, for their own good. There's obviously some disagreement on the topic, but again, I don't see how the former are more evil than the latter. If anything, I'd prefer a smoker over somebody that wants to control minute details of my behavior using government coercion any day of the week, but that's my opinion of what is good. But I'd really want to know why you not only claim it's evil but also claim everybody who disagrees with you on these topics knows they are evil. That's an ambitious statement, I'd like to see some substantiation of it.
  - 14y ago
drivebyacct2 14y ago
There is still no primary source on this, and the only citation I can find that Bob Amnnibale is gay is this article and those reposting it. This might be a better source: http://dot429.com/articles/2012/07/06/google-wants-the-world-to-legalize-love http://dot429.com/articles/2012/07/06/google-wants-the-world...
- corin_ 14y ago
  There's no press out there calling me gay, but if something like this happened in close enough proximity to me that I was asked for a quote they could still call me "an openly gay something something...", the lack of citation doesn't mean it's incorrect, it's more likely to mean he told them that.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    I mostly meant that the initial information on this had been copy-pasted across several sites (I've seen it four different places before it was even posted here) and I was trying to spot check information. I didn't mean to doubt the actual facts or anything, just a mini-snopes.
    - glhaynes 14y ago
      Worth doing; there's no official/PR link for this "global campaign".
blu3jack 14y ago
Call me cynical, but I wonder (A) what is the real motivation behind this, & (B) how seriously is this campaign going to be pursued in unfriendly terrain? I suppose the Singapore test will be interesting as it is some homosexual acts are technically illegal but not generally enforced. Sounds like a good candidate for an easy win... but if it's ineffective there it will presumably be ineffective everywhere.
- ktizo 14y ago
  (A) It loses them edge if they can't employ the people they want in the locations where they want them. (B) See (A)
staunch 14y ago
The comments on the article are funny. People saying this is a reason people might switch to Google from Apple or from Google to Bing, then being reminded that all the tech companies support the LGBT community.
- taligent 14y ago
  Especially since Apple and Microsoft has been supportive of this issue way before Google was. Also you know Tim Cook being gay and all.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    I guess it says a lot that I had no idea Tim Cook was gay. Since it seems society thinks it is not a big enough deal to warrant a mention.
    - corin_ 14y ago
      It has actually been mentioned quite a bit - https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=Tim+Cook+Gay https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=Tim+Cook+Gay Maybe less than you'd expect, but quite a few people deemed it a big enough deal to mention.
mattmaroon 14y ago
This opinion is not going to make me popular here, but if I were a Google shareholder (and I probably am through an ETF) I'd be a little upset by this. And I say this as someone who has been for gay marriage since before it was cool. I'm a gay marriage hipster. But this still irks me. I want companies to lobby only for the issues that are their immediate business (and I say that only because I know we'll never get laws banning lobbying at all) and let their shareholders privately endorse their beliefs. I see this as another example of corporate personhood. Even though I have no sympathy for people who are opposed to gay marriage as private citizens, as Google shareholders I don't feel they should be forced with a choice between supporting their beliefs (however wrongheaded they may seem to me) and being a Google shareholder. I also feel a little gross thinking about an American company preaching tolerance to Singapore. How about we get it fixed here before we start pressuring everyone else?
- corin_ 14y ago
  As a Google shareholder think of it as a.) a method for getting and keeping great employees and b.) marketing. As a supporter of gay marriage, think of it as a nice bonus.
  - cududa 14y ago
    In part I agree with The point of employee perk and marketing. My obscure view of capitalism justifies it even in light of the proposed arguments. My greatest fear is for the safety of employees in regions that will be hostile to this concept. It seems very dangerous to me. (btw .. I'm gay)
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - mattmaroon 14y ago
    I think you could say this about a lot of social issues though. Taking any social stance will be a great way to get some employees, a great way to alienate some. I'm sure prospective Googlers are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage, so it's probably a net positive to them. But let's suppose truckers were overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage, would it be ok for a trucking company to lobby against it? That would bother me just as much as a shareholder as Google's stance. (And more in my capacity as a citizen).
webwanderings 14y ago
There's only one and single source reporting this news and everyone seems to be linking them without adding anything else. I don't know about others, but this seems suspicious. EDIT: I am no anti-LGBT but saying above on principle.
- ktizo 14y ago
  Here is the press page for the conference where this was announced by Google’s Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe. - http://www.globallgbtworkplacesummit.org/press--media.html http://www.globallgbtworkplacesummit.org/press--media.html Also, may I just say that as a I am a lover of smut, innuendo and really bad puns, I think that Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe is a wonderful name for a man in his position.
  - webwanderings 14y ago
    Great, this makes sense now.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
grandalf 14y ago
I'm in favor of gay marriage, pet marriage, sibling marriage, and all sorts of other kinds of marriage that people tend to feel the need to ban. However, I think it's absurd that the state is involved in marriage. Google's move, while perhaps pragmatic in nature, reveals a very strong sentiment legitimizing the state role in marriage, which is the basis for all the backwardness. Only when the state becomes involves in things can politicians attempt to control what others do via the power of the state. I'd rather see Google encourage people to just "marry" each other with private vows and no license or other nonsense.
- prodigal_erik 14y ago
  Private vows don't work so well when your bigoted inlaws decide you can't see your lover at the hospital. People have compiled lists of hundreds of privileges granted through marriage that are difficult-to-impossible to arrange any other enforceable way. We'd have to rewrite family law from scratch. That said, I don't know that they are better at lobbying than anyone else their stockholders could give the money to, which would be the only reason they ought to involve the corporation.
  - dangero 14y ago
    What privileges are difficult-to-impossible to arrange without a legal concept of marriage? Just curious. I also believe that the root of the issue is coming from the government being involved in the marriage conversation at all and I'm curious why that would be hard to change.
    - cdcarter 14y ago
      Off the first hit for "marriage equality" (http://www.marriageequality.org/get-the-facts http://www.marriageequality.org/get-the-facts), here are some choice ones: * Married couples are permitted to give an unlimited amount of gifts to each other without being taxed. * The law provides certain automatic rights to a person's spouse regardless of whether or not a will exists. * With marriage, a couple has the right to be treated as an economic unit and to file joint tax returns (and pay the marriage penalty), and obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies.
schmoe2 14y ago
How do you configure Firefox to make Duck Duck Go the default search engine?
- mkl 14y ago
  Why on Earth are you asking that here, on a HN thread about Google and gay marriage, instead of just googling it? Oh. Now I get it. You're a homophobe, and by the new account, a coward.
  - incest 14y ago
    Google left out incest.
  - Hikari 14y ago
    why would you start insulting random people because they happen to hold a different view from the mainstream? it's sound like dictature to me. Have you ever considered that you can be against gay mariage without wanting to harm gay people or resent any kind of hate toward them?
    - cdcarter 14y ago
      I have, in all my years, never heard that position successfully argued. Marriage-protection amendments almost universally outlaw not only marriage equality but also the establishment of other non-"marriage" arrangements that carry the same benefits as marriage. Please explain how someone could agree with that but not hold any hate towards homosexuals.
      - spindritf 14y ago
        Marriage benefits are a subsidy towards a particular social arrangement (and it changes all the time, mostly through the shape of tax and divorce laws). You don't have to hate anyone to be against extending it. There are supporters and opponents of beef subsidies but cow hate is not the major driving force there. Of course, politics is not about policy http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html so it's very difficult to successfully argue anything because the argument (on any political topic, and in any direction) will almost always be disingenuous.
incest 14y ago
Honest question, when will LGBT support incest? Having relatives covered by insurance would be great. We could abort if we conceive or adopt if we want children.
- incest 14y ago
  Down votes just show the hypocrisy of anti-incest yet LGBT supporting bigots we still have in this world. http://socyberty.com/crime/gay-marriage-incest-and-hypocrisy/ http://socyberty.com/crime/gay-marriage-incest-and-hypocrisy...
  - jrockway 14y ago
    Incest and equal rights for LGBT are two completely separate issues. Without going into the merits of the issues, there are pretty much no people lobbying for father/daughter marriages, while there are lots of people lobbying for gay marriage. One goal of society is to codify rules that its members believe in, and in order to do that, people have to speak up. So if you want to marry your kids, start lobbying! (You can already marry your cousin, if that's good enough for you.)
    - kazoolist 14y ago
      At the risk of troll feeding, it's inaccurate to say state recognized incestual relationships and state recognized gay relationships are "completely separate issues." At the heart of the moment for the later is an effort to change what the purpose of marriage is (or, perhaps, recognize a change that has already happened). Specifically, the move to support gay marriage requires changing the idea of marriage being a relationship primarily concerned with natural procreation into one centered on the expression of romantic "love". You'll note, for instance, that Google is calling its campaign "Legalize Love". The reason the state has opposed incest is that inbreeding leads to a much higher rate of birth defects. But if marriage is shifted in focus from being primarily about creating an ideal situation for natural procreation to one based on "love", who is the state to say that two direct relatives are or aren't in "love" with one another?
creamyhorror 14y ago
This is a pretty surprising move, at least to me. In Singapore it's not even legal to engage in homosexual sex, and there's no recognition of same-sex unions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_... Pushing for gay marriage in a place where gays aren't even legally allowed to have sex is jumping right into the deep end. (I should clarify that the gay community here is nonetheless pretty active anyway, and there haven't been crackdowns in a long while. Homosexuality is pretty much tolerated as long as the sexual acts are kept private.) All in all it's a strange move for a multinational corporation to make, considering how sociopolitical the issue is. Our government is very keen on having dynamic foreign firms set up shop here, but maybe not so keen once they take stances opposed to legislative policy. Google has established a big enough office (and datacenters) here to possibly not want to risk hurting relations (in my uninformed view). I'd guess it's a hoax, taking all these factors into account, and the lack of an official press release.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- paulgb 14y ago
  Homosexual sex was illegal in some states as recently as 2003. Consodering the transformation in the USA since then, I don't think it's premature to start campaigning for marriage rights.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    If Justice O'Connor had her way it might still be ;-) Her concurrence with the judgement of Lawrence v. Texas was only on the basis that Texas singled out homosexual sex specifically. In her view, states could ban blow jobs and anal sex for everybody, but not allow it for straight couples and ban it for gays. I must say the logic has a certain appeal to it. If sex truly is a private matter between two people then cohabiting with multiple partners as if they were spouses should be legally protected too under the same logic. But if we say equal protection is what matters and you can't specifically single out gays, then that problem goes away. As it is, Lawrence has opened up a fair bit of uncertainty what the Supreme Court will do to Lawrence and de facto bigamy laws (enacted in really only a minority of states) if and when they review a case on appeal. (Most states do not recognize informal arrangements as potentially bigamous.)
gdilla 14y ago
I wonder if US 'conservatives', will erect an alternative, conservative search engine, like they have for wikipedia (http://www.conservapedia.com http://www.conservapedia.com)?
- omgsean 14y ago
  If it's meant to appeal to old conservatives surely it will be called "The Google"
gooddaysir 14y ago
The Google car idea was misguided, but getting involved with something as deeply personal, moral and cultural as marriage can't actually be happening. I suspect this will be a hoax and be exposed by morning.
kazoolist 14y ago
For a probably-different point of view on this - I'm a person of faith, who takes his faith seriously, and who's faith teaches that homosexual conduct is immoral. I think this puts me in a distinct minority among the HN community, but in a possible-majority among the American population (with the mainstream orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all teaching the same; and ~80+% of the U.S. self identifying as holding one of these faiths). Given my faith, advocacy like this from Google, Apple, and other prominent tech companies really put me in a bind. Their products have become such fixtures in my day to day life that I'm not sure how to get by without them, but by using their products and providing these companies with revenue, I feel like I'm contributing to a fund for someone to publicly proclaim: "You're faith is a sham; your God irrelevant; and, by the way, we think you are a vile, hateful, homophobic bigot". I wish Apple, Google, etc. would all just focus on making insanely great products and not jump into the fray of divisive-by-definition social issues. And, no, I'm not a "homophobe" or "bigot". I have friends who are gay; I don't hate them. I just think they engage in behavior that's immoral, just like others of my friends who sleep with each other outside of marriage, etc. I recognize my faith condemns such behavior - but I'd equally condemn anyone who insults, harasses, or otherwise harms someone just because that someone is gay.
- Tichy 14y ago
  So if somebody is pro gay marriage, they are telling you "you are a vile, hateful, homophobic bigot", but if you are against gay marriage, you are "merely thinking their behavior is immoral". I think your self evaluation could be improved. I find it surprising (but cool) that Google takes a stand on a controversial issue here. Think about it another way: if Google doesn't take a stand on other human rights issues, there is a huge scandal. For example if they were to reveal information about Chinese activists to the Chinese government. So why shouldn't they be expected to take a stand regarding other human rights issues, too?
- sjwright 14y ago
  I can't speak for anyone else, but I've always found the notion of faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof) to seem hollow and meaningless compared to the joy of evidence, humility from understanding the size and time of the known universe, and the fortitude to accept that some questions have no answers. At some point in the future, science will probably identify the origin of homosexuality. (Given its prevalence in nature, consistent trigger rates, and the seemingly smooth continuum between hetero and homo, it's likely to run deep within our genetic makeup.) So if physical evidence is found for homosexuality, should your faith reconsider what it means to be "made in god's image"?
hmoghnie 14y ago
How about a campaign to end world hunger, government transparency, proper SEC accounting, banks accountability, or real-time online voting for current issues and abolish congress.
- Tichy 14y ago
  Google is involved in a lot of projects that aim to make the world a better place...
- Goronmon 14y ago
  You should get right on those then.
TamDenholm 14y ago
I'm waiting for the crowd that got all upset over the rainbow oreo picture to start their outcry about this, they vowed to boycott oreos but i doubt they'd do the same with Google.
shalmanese 14y ago
A lot of people outside of Google don't take it's "Don't be evil" pledge seriously anymore but I know from talking to employees that it's still something Google cares deeply about. Most of the people in this thread seem to analyzing it from an amoral, self-interested business perspective and twisting facts and circumstances to justify that narrative. I think the far more parsimonious explanation is that Google felt like it couldn't sit on the sidelines of the gay marriage debate any longer and still uphold it's values.
shellox 14y ago
Google should rather pay the therapy for this people. Being y is not normal. Gay people kissing on the strret should pay a fine because of indecent behaviour.
danparsonson 14y ago
To the vocal minority who pop up on threads like this and argue that gay marriage is something that should be opposed, I offer the following: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/lz_granderson_the_myth_of_the_gay_agenda.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/lz_granderson_the_myth_of_t... If you find yourself thinking bad thoughts while watching this, stop yourself and try to empathise with those whom you so blithely speak against. It won't hurt and no-one has to know ;-)
eliasmacpherson 14y ago
I'd much rather they campaigned to ban marriage for everyone. This is awful, it's bad enough as a government/legal institution without corporations weighing in.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  Marriage isn't a bad insitution. It's easy to say it's unncessary, but then your partner dies, and now you have no legal rights or protections.
  - eliasmacpherson 14y ago
    Ask someone whose been divorced! I forgot to add religion to that list. If it was gay civil union, there would be far less outcry or interest. Some gay marriage campaigners are for religious recognition, and that's a hard battle. I don't think marriage in its current form as a relgious, legal and government institution is that great, and I don't think getting corporations involved is going to improve it. Marriage is certainly not the only way to ensure legal rights or protections for people. That what's married people are, just people. As an institution, marriage interferes with that. In fact where I live, marriage grants some legal rights, like cheaper taxes, but takes away others from married women, who don't receive our equivalent of 'social security' if their partner is still working and they are unemployed. That and social conventions around divorce, which has quite a high rate, can make Marriage a miserable institution for more than half of the people who have got involved in it. In times past, Marriage was used as an enforcer of policies that kept women under the thumb of a male hierarchy, and that cannot be denied. In the present day, I think alternatives can and should be sought, where these external forces such as corporations, governments, relgions and corporations cannot interfere with people's private lives to push their institutional agendas. One way to achieve this would be to ban different treatment for married couples versus normal people, banning outright is too extreme, I was being flippant.
nhangen 14y ago
This might not relate, but I'd be interested to know how many of the people that think this is a good idea would also support Google were they to take a stance on something as charged as abortion?
lstroud 14y ago
So, what does a political campaign / stance mean for a search company? Would they skew search results to support a position? If I am their competitor, it seems like an opportunity for FUD, even if they are doing the right thing.
vegas 14y ago
How about some fact checking prior to launching into an enflamed debate? This seems a rather unlikely event, and the source provided doesn't look like a tremendously trustworthy news source. Where's the Google PR statement?
Apocryphon 14y ago
I'm interested in the legal effects of this. Singapore, for all of its prosperity and advances, isn't a democratic country. And I'm wondering what the EU would think about a multinational lobbying in one of their member states.

173 points by joeyespo 14y ago

cheez 14y ago

As long as companies are gonna be able to lobby, might as well lobby for good stuff.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
I don't disagree with your sentiment, but lobbying by nature is usually in regards to things that are not universally held beliefs.
- alanh 14y ago
  Are you implying that pro-gay marriage sentiment is a universally held belief? Maybe amongst your peers, and that’s great. Globally, I’m not even sure if the sentiment has hit 50% yet. Edit: Apparently I mis-understood, but I’m not sure what the correct understanding is, exactly.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    No, that's precisely the opposite of what I said. In that, if Google is lobbying for it, then it must be something in contention enough to demand that they actively lobby for it.
- ktizo 14y ago
  There are no universally held beliefs. Even for things that seem fairly solid, you can always find people in disagreement.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    Okay, I'll phrase it another way. If Google has to lobby for it, it's probably not as universally held as cheez seemed to be taking for granted.
    - corin_ 14y ago
      Does calling it "good stuff" imply universally held?
      - yew 14y ago
        The statement that something is good, without further qualification, does tend to imply that it is universally held to be good. Albeit the two aren't necessarily synonymous. They tend to be taken as such in everyday conversation.
        corin_ 14y ago
        In my opinion "good" is subjective by default, not objective. Further, I would think that even when objectiveness is implied it would be that the speaker thinks it should be universally held, not that it necessarily is. Gay marriage is not universally supported, this we know. Do you personally think it is "good"? If not, does that mean you think it is the opposite, "bad", just because not everyone supports it?
        yew 14y ago
        Think of it as a matter of communication. Everyone (or at least almost everyone) is lobbying for 'good stuff,' so it's not a particularly useful statement to make all by itself. > Further, I would think that even when objectiveness is implied it would be that the speaker thinks it should be universally held, not that it necessarily is. Hence the two not being synonymous. Perhaps I simply happen to know an unusually large number of people who believe that moral correctness implies a convincing argument.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      I thought cheez was giving personal opinion, not speaking for the world. Is fairly obvious that it is not universally held to be good. The UN only recently removed homosexuality from the list of things states are not allowed to execute their citizens for and the arguments about gay marriage are currently tearing great holes in many of the major sects of christianity, accompanied by much public wailing and gnashing of teeth. To think that it was a universally held belief at this point in time would require an extremely restricted social circle and no access to any form of media, so given that cheez is posting on the intatubes, I doubt this is the case.
smsm42 14y ago
Did you ever see anybody lobbying for stuff they consider bad? Of course everybody lobbies for good stuff, just definitions of good stuff differ between people. Or you meant "As long as companies are gonna be able to lobby, might as well lobby for stuff I agree with"?
- Nursie 14y ago
  Yup, all that lobbying to be able to carry on polluting air and waterways, to keep tobacco sales and advertising legal, the people doing those things thought they were good and pure too - right? There's lobbying that's evil, and the people doing it know it's evil, but it affects their bottom line so they do it anyway.
  - smsm42 14y ago
    Only way to not pollute air and waterways at all is to cease all industry and somehow dispose of the large percentage of the human population. Otherwise, they'd have some impact on the environment, it's inevitable. This impact can be bigger or lesser, and can be measured against they usefulness of what comes out of it. Of course, producers argue that their products are very useful and their impacts on the environment are minimal and well controlled. They may be wrong or misrepresenting how actually good is what they in fact do, but I never heard anybody arguing, for example "let's destroy the environment, to hell with it, who needs it anyway". Did you? Same for tobacco sales and advertising - of course, many people - especially those who enjoy smoking - think it is a good thing that it is legal. They also think it is a good thing that they, being sane adults, can choose how to behave and manage their own bodies and property. Some people think instead it is a good thing to deny certain people choice in what they can do with their bodies and their property, for their own good. There's obviously some disagreement on the topic, but again, I don't see how the former are more evil than the latter. If anything, I'd prefer a smoker over somebody that wants to control minute details of my behavior using government coercion any day of the week, but that's my opinion of what is good. But I'd really want to know why you not only claim it's evil but also claim everybody who disagrees with you on these topics knows they are evil. That's an ambitious statement, I'd like to see some substantiation of it.
- 14y ago

drivebyacct2 14y ago

There is still no primary source on this, and the only citation I can find that Bob Amnnibale is gay is this article and those reposting it. This might be a better source: http://dot429.com/articles/2012/07/06/google-wants-the-world-to-legalize-love http://dot429.com/articles/2012/07/06/google-wants-the-world...

corin_ 14y ago
There's no press out there calling me gay, but if something like this happened in close enough proximity to me that I was asked for a quote they could still call me "an openly gay something something...", the lack of citation doesn't mean it's incorrect, it's more likely to mean he told them that.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  I mostly meant that the initial information on this had been copy-pasted across several sites (I've seen it four different places before it was even posted here) and I was trying to spot check information. I didn't mean to doubt the actual facts or anything, just a mini-snopes.
  - glhaynes 14y ago
    Worth doing; there's no official/PR link for this "global campaign".

blu3jack 14y ago

Call me cynical, but I wonder (A) what is the real motivation behind this, & (B) how seriously is this campaign going to be pursued in unfriendly terrain? I suppose the Singapore test will be interesting as it is some homosexual acts are technically illegal but not generally enforced. Sounds like a good candidate for an easy win... but if it's ineffective there it will presumably be ineffective everywhere.

ktizo 14y ago
(A) It loses them edge if they can't employ the people they want in the locations where they want them. (B) See (A)

staunch 14y ago

The comments on the article are funny. People saying this is a reason people might switch to Google from Apple or from Google to Bing, then being reminded that all the tech companies support the LGBT community.

taligent 14y ago
Especially since Apple and Microsoft has been supportive of this issue way before Google was. Also you know Tim Cook being gay and all.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  I guess it says a lot that I had no idea Tim Cook was gay. Since it seems society thinks it is not a big enough deal to warrant a mention.
  - corin_ 14y ago
    It has actually been mentioned quite a bit - https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=Tim+Cook+Gay https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=Tim+Cook+Gay Maybe less than you'd expect, but quite a few people deemed it a big enough deal to mention.

mattmaroon 14y ago

This opinion is not going to make me popular here, but if I were a Google shareholder (and I probably am through an ETF) I'd be a little upset by this. And I say this as someone who has been for gay marriage since before it was cool. I'm a gay marriage hipster. But this still irks me. I want companies to lobby only for the issues that are their immediate business (and I say that only because I know we'll never get laws banning lobbying at all) and let their shareholders privately endorse their beliefs. I see this as another example of corporate personhood. Even though I have no sympathy for people who are opposed to gay marriage as private citizens, as Google shareholders I don't feel they should be forced with a choice between supporting their beliefs (however wrongheaded they may seem to me) and being a Google shareholder. I also feel a little gross thinking about an American company preaching tolerance to Singapore. How about we get it fixed here before we start pressuring everyone else?

corin_ 14y ago
As a Google shareholder think of it as a.) a method for getting and keeping great employees and b.) marketing. As a supporter of gay marriage, think of it as a nice bonus.
- cududa 14y ago
  In part I agree with The point of employee perk and marketing. My obscure view of capitalism justifies it even in light of the proposed arguments. My greatest fear is for the safety of employees in regions that will be hostile to this concept. It seems very dangerous to me. (btw .. I'm gay)
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- mattmaroon 14y ago
  I think you could say this about a lot of social issues though. Taking any social stance will be a great way to get some employees, a great way to alienate some. I'm sure prospective Googlers are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage, so it's probably a net positive to them. But let's suppose truckers were overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage, would it be ok for a trucking company to lobby against it? That would bother me just as much as a shareholder as Google's stance. (And more in my capacity as a citizen).

webwanderings 14y ago

There's only one and single source reporting this news and everyone seems to be linking them without adding anything else. I don't know about others, but this seems suspicious. EDIT: I am no anti-LGBT but saying above on principle.

ktizo 14y ago
Here is the press page for the conference where this was announced by Google’s Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe. - http://www.globallgbtworkplacesummit.org/press--media.html http://www.globallgbtworkplacesummit.org/press--media.html Also, may I just say that as a I am a lover of smut, innuendo and really bad puns, I think that Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe is a wonderful name for a man in his position.
- webwanderings 14y ago
  Great, this makes sense now.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

grandalf 14y ago

I'm in favor of gay marriage, pet marriage, sibling marriage, and all sorts of other kinds of marriage that people tend to feel the need to ban. However, I think it's absurd that the state is involved in marriage. Google's move, while perhaps pragmatic in nature, reveals a very strong sentiment legitimizing the state role in marriage, which is the basis for all the backwardness. Only when the state becomes involves in things can politicians attempt to control what others do via the power of the state. I'd rather see Google encourage people to just "marry" each other with private vows and no license or other nonsense.

prodigal_erik 14y ago
Private vows don't work so well when your bigoted inlaws decide you can't see your lover at the hospital. People have compiled lists of hundreds of privileges granted through marriage that are difficult-to-impossible to arrange any other enforceable way. We'd have to rewrite family law from scratch. That said, I don't know that they are better at lobbying than anyone else their stockholders could give the money to, which would be the only reason they ought to involve the corporation.
- dangero 14y ago
  What privileges are difficult-to-impossible to arrange without a legal concept of marriage? Just curious. I also believe that the root of the issue is coming from the government being involved in the marriage conversation at all and I'm curious why that would be hard to change.
  - cdcarter 14y ago
    Off the first hit for "marriage equality" (http://www.marriageequality.org/get-the-facts http://www.marriageequality.org/get-the-facts), here are some choice ones: * Married couples are permitted to give an unlimited amount of gifts to each other without being taxed. * The law provides certain automatic rights to a person's spouse regardless of whether or not a will exists. * With marriage, a couple has the right to be treated as an economic unit and to file joint tax returns (and pay the marriage penalty), and obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies.

schmoe2 14y ago

How do you configure Firefox to make Duck Duck Go the default search engine?

mkl 14y ago
Why on Earth are you asking that here, on a HN thread about Google and gay marriage, instead of just googling it? Oh. Now I get it. You're a homophobe, and by the new account, a coward.
- incest 14y ago
  Google left out incest.
- Hikari 14y ago
  why would you start insulting random people because they happen to hold a different view from the mainstream? it's sound like dictature to me. Have you ever considered that you can be against gay mariage without wanting to harm gay people or resent any kind of hate toward them?
  - cdcarter 14y ago
    I have, in all my years, never heard that position successfully argued. Marriage-protection amendments almost universally outlaw not only marriage equality but also the establishment of other non-"marriage" arrangements that carry the same benefits as marriage. Please explain how someone could agree with that but not hold any hate towards homosexuals.
    - spindritf 14y ago
      Marriage benefits are a subsidy towards a particular social arrangement (and it changes all the time, mostly through the shape of tax and divorce laws). You don't have to hate anyone to be against extending it. There are supporters and opponents of beef subsidies but cow hate is not the major driving force there. Of course, politics is not about policy http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html so it's very difficult to successfully argue anything because the argument (on any political topic, and in any direction) will almost always be disingenuous.

incest 14y ago

Honest question, when will LGBT support incest? Having relatives covered by insurance would be great. We could abort if we conceive or adopt if we want children.

incest 14y ago
Down votes just show the hypocrisy of anti-incest yet LGBT supporting bigots we still have in this world. http://socyberty.com/crime/gay-marriage-incest-and-hypocrisy/ http://socyberty.com/crime/gay-marriage-incest-and-hypocrisy...
- jrockway 14y ago
  Incest and equal rights for LGBT are two completely separate issues. Without going into the merits of the issues, there are pretty much no people lobbying for father/daughter marriages, while there are lots of people lobbying for gay marriage. One goal of society is to codify rules that its members believe in, and in order to do that, people have to speak up. So if you want to marry your kids, start lobbying! (You can already marry your cousin, if that's good enough for you.)
  - kazoolist 14y ago
    At the risk of troll feeding, it's inaccurate to say state recognized incestual relationships and state recognized gay relationships are "completely separate issues." At the heart of the moment for the later is an effort to change what the purpose of marriage is (or, perhaps, recognize a change that has already happened). Specifically, the move to support gay marriage requires changing the idea of marriage being a relationship primarily concerned with natural procreation into one centered on the expression of romantic "love". You'll note, for instance, that Google is calling its campaign "Legalize Love". The reason the state has opposed incest is that inbreeding leads to a much higher rate of birth defects. But if marriage is shifted in focus from being primarily about creating an ideal situation for natural procreation to one based on "love", who is the state to say that two direct relatives are or aren't in "love" with one another?

creamyhorror 14y ago

This is a pretty surprising move, at least to me. In Singapore it's not even legal to engage in homosexual sex, and there's no recognition of same-sex unions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_... Pushing for gay marriage in a place where gays aren't even legally allowed to have sex is jumping right into the deep end. (I should clarify that the gay community here is nonetheless pretty active anyway, and there haven't been crackdowns in a long while. Homosexuality is pretty much tolerated as long as the sexual acts are kept private.) All in all it's a strange move for a multinational corporation to make, considering how sociopolitical the issue is. Our government is very keen on having dynamic foreign firms set up shop here, but maybe not so keen once they take stances opposed to legislative policy. Google has established a big enough office (and datacenters) here to possibly not want to risk hurting relations (in my uninformed view). I'd guess it's a hoax, taking all these factors into account, and the lack of an official press release.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
paulgb 14y ago
Homosexual sex was illegal in some states as recently as 2003. Consodering the transformation in the USA since then, I don't think it's premature to start campaigning for marriage rights.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  If Justice O'Connor had her way it might still be ;-) Her concurrence with the judgement of Lawrence v. Texas was only on the basis that Texas singled out homosexual sex specifically. In her view, states could ban blow jobs and anal sex for everybody, but not allow it for straight couples and ban it for gays. I must say the logic has a certain appeal to it. If sex truly is a private matter between two people then cohabiting with multiple partners as if they were spouses should be legally protected too under the same logic. But if we say equal protection is what matters and you can't specifically single out gays, then that problem goes away. As it is, Lawrence has opened up a fair bit of uncertainty what the Supreme Court will do to Lawrence and de facto bigamy laws (enacted in really only a minority of states) if and when they review a case on appeal. (Most states do not recognize informal arrangements as potentially bigamous.)

gdilla 14y ago

I wonder if US 'conservatives', will erect an alternative, conservative search engine, like they have for wikipedia (http://www.conservapedia.com http://www.conservapedia.com)?

omgsean 14y ago
If it's meant to appeal to old conservatives surely it will be called "The Google"

gooddaysir 14y ago

The Google car idea was misguided, but getting involved with something as deeply personal, moral and cultural as marriage can't actually be happening. I suspect this will be a hoax and be exposed by morning.

kazoolist 14y ago

For a probably-different point of view on this - I'm a person of faith, who takes his faith seriously, and who's faith teaches that homosexual conduct is immoral. I think this puts me in a distinct minority among the HN community, but in a possible-majority among the American population (with the mainstream orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all teaching the same; and ~80+% of the U.S. self identifying as holding one of these faiths). Given my faith, advocacy like this from Google, Apple, and other prominent tech companies really put me in a bind. Their products have become such fixtures in my day to day life that I'm not sure how to get by without them, but by using their products and providing these companies with revenue, I feel like I'm contributing to a fund for someone to publicly proclaim: "You're faith is a sham; your God irrelevant; and, by the way, we think you are a vile, hateful, homophobic bigot". I wish Apple, Google, etc. would all just focus on making insanely great products and not jump into the fray of divisive-by-definition social issues. And, no, I'm not a "homophobe" or "bigot". I have friends who are gay; I don't hate them. I just think they engage in behavior that's immoral, just like others of my friends who sleep with each other outside of marriage, etc. I recognize my faith condemns such behavior - but I'd equally condemn anyone who insults, harasses, or otherwise harms someone just because that someone is gay.

Tichy 14y ago
So if somebody is pro gay marriage, they are telling you "you are a vile, hateful, homophobic bigot", but if you are against gay marriage, you are "merely thinking their behavior is immoral". I think your self evaluation could be improved. I find it surprising (but cool) that Google takes a stand on a controversial issue here. Think about it another way: if Google doesn't take a stand on other human rights issues, there is a huge scandal. For example if they were to reveal information about Chinese activists to the Chinese government. So why shouldn't they be expected to take a stand regarding other human rights issues, too?
sjwright 14y ago
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've always found the notion of faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof) to seem hollow and meaningless compared to the joy of evidence, humility from understanding the size and time of the known universe, and the fortitude to accept that some questions have no answers. At some point in the future, science will probably identify the origin of homosexuality. (Given its prevalence in nature, consistent trigger rates, and the seemingly smooth continuum between hetero and homo, it's likely to run deep within our genetic makeup.) So if physical evidence is found for homosexuality, should your faith reconsider what it means to be "made in god's image"?

hmoghnie 14y ago

How about a campaign to end world hunger, government transparency, proper SEC accounting, banks accountability, or real-time online voting for current issues and abolish congress.

Tichy 14y ago
Google is involved in a lot of projects that aim to make the world a better place...
Goronmon 14y ago
You should get right on those then.

TamDenholm 14y ago

I'm waiting for the crowd that got all upset over the rainbow oreo picture to start their outcry about this, they vowed to boycott oreos but i doubt they'd do the same with Google.

shalmanese 14y ago

A lot of people outside of Google don't take it's "Don't be evil" pledge seriously anymore but I know from talking to employees that it's still something Google cares deeply about. Most of the people in this thread seem to analyzing it from an amoral, self-interested business perspective and twisting facts and circumstances to justify that narrative. I think the far more parsimonious explanation is that Google felt like it couldn't sit on the sidelines of the gay marriage debate any longer and still uphold it's values.

shellox 14y ago

Google should rather pay the therapy for this people. Being y is not normal. Gay people kissing on the strret should pay a fine because of indecent behaviour.

danparsonson 14y ago

To the vocal minority who pop up on threads like this and argue that gay marriage is something that should be opposed, I offer the following: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/lz_granderson_the_myth_of_the_gay_agenda.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/lz_granderson_the_myth_of_t... If you find yourself thinking bad thoughts while watching this, stop yourself and try to empathise with those whom you so blithely speak against. It won't hurt and no-one has to know ;-)

eliasmacpherson 14y ago

I'd much rather they campaigned to ban marriage for everyone. This is awful, it's bad enough as a government/legal institution without corporations weighing in.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
Marriage isn't a bad insitution. It's easy to say it's unncessary, but then your partner dies, and now you have no legal rights or protections.
- eliasmacpherson 14y ago
  Ask someone whose been divorced! I forgot to add religion to that list. If it was gay civil union, there would be far less outcry or interest. Some gay marriage campaigners are for religious recognition, and that's a hard battle. I don't think marriage in its current form as a relgious, legal and government institution is that great, and I don't think getting corporations involved is going to improve it. Marriage is certainly not the only way to ensure legal rights or protections for people. That what's married people are, just people. As an institution, marriage interferes with that. In fact where I live, marriage grants some legal rights, like cheaper taxes, but takes away others from married women, who don't receive our equivalent of 'social security' if their partner is still working and they are unemployed. That and social conventions around divorce, which has quite a high rate, can make Marriage a miserable institution for more than half of the people who have got involved in it. In times past, Marriage was used as an enforcer of policies that kept women under the thumb of a male hierarchy, and that cannot be denied. In the present day, I think alternatives can and should be sought, where these external forces such as corporations, governments, relgions and corporations cannot interfere with people's private lives to push their institutional agendas. One way to achieve this would be to ban different treatment for married couples versus normal people, banning outright is too extreme, I was being flippant.

nhangen 14y ago

This might not relate, but I'd be interested to know how many of the people that think this is a good idea would also support Google were they to take a stance on something as charged as abortion?

lstroud 14y ago

So, what does a political campaign / stance mean for a search company? Would they skew search results to support a position? If I am their competitor, it seems like an opportunity for FUD, even if they are doing the right thing.

vegas 14y ago

How about some fact checking prior to launching into an enflamed debate? This seems a rather unlikely event, and the source provided doesn't look like a tremendously trustworthy news source. Where's the Google PR statement?

Apocryphon 14y ago

I'm interested in the legal effects of this. Singapore, for all of its prosperity and advances, isn't a democratic country. And I'm wondering what the EU would think about a multinational lobbying in one of their member states.