6 ms·

In other words, Google is part of the world -> improve the world -> Google improves. The same argument is valid for any effort to improve the world. The argume

In other words, Google is part of the world -> improve the world -> Google improves. The same argument is valid for any effort to improve the world. The argument that shareholders shouldn't care, would only have some weight if it was a insignificantly small improvement, not likely to positively the company visibly. So it comes down to how big gay marriage is. And I believe many people take it for granted. Gay marriage is not just a small detail, it's huge. It'd improve the livinghood of a huge percentage of people, Google included, enormously. It's not about just a fancy ceremony, or legal rights to inheritance. It's an important door to better tolerance. And tolerance is huge.

redthrowaway 14y ago
More than "improve the world", it's "improve the part of the world that matters to Google". They've done the same thing with advocating for a free and open Internet for over a decade--a better internet makes a better Google. Let's look at what this might mean for Google, in practical terms. Some 10-15% of people are LGBT. It stands to reason that the same holds true of engineers. Now, it's well-established that the well is running dry in SV; talent needs to be imported. So if I'm a gay engineer thinking of moving to SV, how does this change my thoughts about where I want to work? It stands to reason that a significant number of LGBT engineers would be motivated to work for Google by this announcement. Let's look at non-gay immigrants. Outside of places like China and India, most of the countries Google is looking to recruit from are way ahead of the US on gay rights. So much so that the mere fact that gay marriage is an "issue" in the US serves to perpetuate the bible-thumping moron stereotype of Americans. So even for non-LGBT engineers from Europe, Canada, Australia, etc, this would be viewed by the majority as a reason to work for Google. Now, how would this hurt them? The argument can be made that, among more conservative (read: Indian and Chinese) societies, where gay rights are not accepted as human rights, that some percentage of potential hires would be put off by such a move. Perhaps, but I think that there are a number of mitigating factors, here. First, gay rights aren't nearly as big a political issue in those countries as in the US. It's frowned upon, but you don't have presidential nominees from one of the two parties proving how much they deserve the candidacy by falling over themselves to say who thinks gays are worse. Secondly and generally speaking, "culture" is simply nowhere near as big an attraction for people from those countries as status and income. So while it may deter some people, it likely wouldn't be many. Now for advertisers: will anyone really drop Google for online advertising because of this? Somehow I doubt it. There may be some of the Walmarts and whatnot who drop them, but I find the prospect unlikely. To sum it up: advantages for Google include easier, more effective recruitment. Disadvantages include potential loss of customers. I think Google wins this solely on the bottom line, let alone the fact that it's just a good thing to do.
- henrikschroder 14y ago
  The single biggest improvement they could do to help recruiting is to lobby as hard as they can for repealing the &"#&&¤#"!! Defence of Marriage Act. If you get some sort of working visa in the US, you can in many cases also get a visa for your spouse so that both of you can live there and work there. However, the %#""&!! DOMA explicitly defines spouse as someone of the opposite gender that you are married to. It doesn't matter if same-sex marriage is legal or not in the country you're from. It doesn't matter if same-sex marriage is legal or not in the US state you're going to. If your husband or wife is of the same sex as you, you're just screwed by the visa process, you can't bring them.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    I am pretty confident DOMA section 3 (the only part that actually does anything) will get struck down next year, and the definition will revert to the states. Before Scalia's off-the-wall dissent in Arizona v. United States I thought it would be unanimous on 10th Amendment grounds. Now I think maybe 7-1 or 8-1 depending on whether Kagan recuses. I think there is virtually no chance that Thomas will vote against a 10th Amendment argument. The only hope congress has on this (though kudos for them for defending the doomed law) is to hope the court follows Comstock and gives the federal government broad authority to tack on all kinds of things to federal powers. I think the chance of this though is very, very small. However, if they do strike it down on 10th Amendment grounds expect a lot of hand-wringing from liberal law school professors. When a district court found it violated the 10th Amendment, Jack Balkin (very much on the liberal side) said something to the effect that while he wanted to see DOMA struck down, the 10th Amendment was just too dangerous to the idea of centralized government to allow that to stand.
    - einhverfr 14y ago
      Just to clarify, there were other dissents in Arizona v. US, but the only one that was bonkers was Scalia's. The other dissents (Thomas, and Alito's partial dissent) thought the AZ immigration laws were similar enough to the federal law to survive pre-emption. Scalia thought the state had inherent rights as a separate sovereign to keep out non-citizens it didn't want there. It wasn't perfectly clear why Scalia didn't think Arizona could keep out foreign tourists if they wanted (though he did assert that the state would have to respect federal visas). I even knew people who usually agreed with Scalia who thought that opinion was "radical."
batista 14y ago
>Gay marriage is not just a small detail, it's huge. Really? How so? Because gays suddenly want to take part in the antiquated, religious inspired ceremony of marriage?
- irahul 14y ago
  > Because gays suddenly want to take part in the antiquated, religious inspired ceremony of marriage? How about gays/lesbians want a part in health insurance, inheritance, and non-harassment for them and their children?
- potatolicious 14y ago
  > "religious inspired ceremony of marriage?" Religion was ex-post-facto applied to marriage, not vice versa. Note that marriage is pervasive in cultures without strong religious influence or state religions (see: marriage in China, where historically Buddhism rules, and scripture stipulates nothing about marriage). Marriage, like many social customs, is a cultural phenomenon. Religion is only pinned onto it in cultures where religion is a Big Fucking Deal(tm).
  - batista 14y ago
    >Religion was ex-post-facto applied to marriage, not vice versa. Wrong, marriage was a religious ceremony all along. Maybe you have "mating" in mind, not marriage. Check anthropological accounts. Actually religion predates most forms of even government and cultural practice. >Note that marriage is pervasive in cultures without strong religious influence or state religions (see: marriage in China, where historically Buddhism rules, and scripture stipulates nothing about marriage). Buddhism in China is _one_ of several religions. Taoism, Shenism, etc, are as prevalent. As for Buddhism stipulating nothing about marriage: "While Buddhist practice varies considerably among its various schools, marriage is one of the few concepts specifically mentioned in the context of Śīla (Buddhist behavior discipline). (Wikipedia)". Not to mention that the pure and "non religion like" idea of Buddhism that westerners have is not at all how it works for common people in China or asia in general. >Religion is only pinned onto it in cultures where religion is a Big Fucking Deal(tm). Religion is a "Big Fucking Deal" in all fucking cultures. Visit any archeological museum of any civilization to check this out. It's just that there are many forms of religion, and not all involved a bearded deity in the clouds. Even confucianism serves the role of religion, with several societal norms and guidelines etc.

redthrowaway 14y ago

More than "improve the world", it's "improve the part of the world that matters to Google". They've done the same thing with advocating for a free and open Internet for over a decade--a better internet makes a better Google. Let's look at what this might mean for Google, in practical terms. Some 10-15% of people are LGBT. It stands to reason that the same holds true of engineers. Now, it's well-established that the well is running dry in SV; talent needs to be imported. So if I'm a gay engineer thinking of moving to SV, how does this change my thoughts about where I want to work? It stands to reason that a significant number of LGBT engineers would be motivated to work for Google by this announcement. Let's look at non-gay immigrants. Outside of places like China and India, most of the countries Google is looking to recruit from are way ahead of the US on gay rights. So much so that the mere fact that gay marriage is an "issue" in the US serves to perpetuate the bible-thumping moron stereotype of Americans. So even for non-LGBT engineers from Europe, Canada, Australia, etc, this would be viewed by the majority as a reason to work for Google. Now, how would this hurt them? The argument can be made that, among more conservative (read: Indian and Chinese) societies, where gay rights are not accepted as human rights, that some percentage of potential hires would be put off by such a move. Perhaps, but I think that there are a number of mitigating factors, here. First, gay rights aren't nearly as big a political issue in those countries as in the US. It's frowned upon, but you don't have presidential nominees from one of the two parties proving how much they deserve the candidacy by falling over themselves to say who thinks gays are worse. Secondly and generally speaking, "culture" is simply nowhere near as big an attraction for people from those countries as status and income. So while it may deter some people, it likely wouldn't be many. Now for advertisers: will anyone really drop Google for online advertising because of this? Somehow I doubt it. There may be some of the Walmarts and whatnot who drop them, but I find the prospect unlikely. To sum it up: advantages for Google include easier, more effective recruitment. Disadvantages include potential loss of customers. I think Google wins this solely on the bottom line, let alone the fact that it's just a good thing to do.

henrikschroder 14y ago
The single biggest improvement they could do to help recruiting is to lobby as hard as they can for repealing the &"#&&¤#"!! Defence of Marriage Act. If you get some sort of working visa in the US, you can in many cases also get a visa for your spouse so that both of you can live there and work there. However, the %#""&!! DOMA explicitly defines spouse as someone of the opposite gender that you are married to. It doesn't matter if same-sex marriage is legal or not in the country you're from. It doesn't matter if same-sex marriage is legal or not in the US state you're going to. If your husband or wife is of the same sex as you, you're just screwed by the visa process, you can't bring them.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  I am pretty confident DOMA section 3 (the only part that actually does anything) will get struck down next year, and the definition will revert to the states. Before Scalia's off-the-wall dissent in Arizona v. United States I thought it would be unanimous on 10th Amendment grounds. Now I think maybe 7-1 or 8-1 depending on whether Kagan recuses. I think there is virtually no chance that Thomas will vote against a 10th Amendment argument. The only hope congress has on this (though kudos for them for defending the doomed law) is to hope the court follows Comstock and gives the federal government broad authority to tack on all kinds of things to federal powers. I think the chance of this though is very, very small. However, if they do strike it down on 10th Amendment grounds expect a lot of hand-wringing from liberal law school professors. When a district court found it violated the 10th Amendment, Jack Balkin (very much on the liberal side) said something to the effect that while he wanted to see DOMA struck down, the 10th Amendment was just too dangerous to the idea of centralized government to allow that to stand.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    Just to clarify, there were other dissents in Arizona v. US, but the only one that was bonkers was Scalia's. The other dissents (Thomas, and Alito's partial dissent) thought the AZ immigration laws were similar enough to the federal law to survive pre-emption. Scalia thought the state had inherent rights as a separate sovereign to keep out non-citizens it didn't want there. It wasn't perfectly clear why Scalia didn't think Arizona could keep out foreign tourists if they wanted (though he did assert that the state would have to respect federal visas). I even knew people who usually agreed with Scalia who thought that opinion was "radical."

batista 14y ago

>Gay marriage is not just a small detail, it's huge. Really? How so? Because gays suddenly want to take part in the antiquated, religious inspired ceremony of marriage?

irahul 14y ago
> Because gays suddenly want to take part in the antiquated, religious inspired ceremony of marriage? How about gays/lesbians want a part in health insurance, inheritance, and non-harassment for them and their children?
potatolicious 14y ago
> "religious inspired ceremony of marriage?" Religion was ex-post-facto applied to marriage, not vice versa. Note that marriage is pervasive in cultures without strong religious influence or state religions (see: marriage in China, where historically Buddhism rules, and scripture stipulates nothing about marriage). Marriage, like many social customs, is a cultural phenomenon. Religion is only pinned onto it in cultures where religion is a Big Fucking Deal(tm).
- batista 14y ago
  >Religion was ex-post-facto applied to marriage, not vice versa. Wrong, marriage was a religious ceremony all along. Maybe you have "mating" in mind, not marriage. Check anthropological accounts. Actually religion predates most forms of even government and cultural practice. >Note that marriage is pervasive in cultures without strong religious influence or state religions (see: marriage in China, where historically Buddhism rules, and scripture stipulates nothing about marriage). Buddhism in China is _one_ of several religions. Taoism, Shenism, etc, are as prevalent. As for Buddhism stipulating nothing about marriage: "While Buddhist practice varies considerably among its various schools, marriage is one of the few concepts specifically mentioned in the context of Śīla (Buddhist behavior discipline). (Wikipedia)". Not to mention that the pure and "non religion like" idea of Buddhism that westerners have is not at all how it works for common people in China or asia in general. >Religion is only pinned onto it in cultures where religion is a Big Fucking Deal(tm). Religion is a "Big Fucking Deal" in all fucking cultures. Visit any archeological museum of any civilization to check this out. It's just that there are many forms of religion, and not all involved a bearded deity in the clouds. Even confucianism serves the role of religion, with several societal norms and guidelines etc.