10 ms·

Bezos pledges $2.6M to support same sex marriage

111 points by frankphilips 14y ago

learc83 14y ago
Personally, I don't support same sex marriage, bug legally I see no real reason to ban it. However, I'd prefer the government who represents me, not endorse a practice I don't support. My solution for years has been for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely. Marriage should be a purely religious ceremony, and we can establish something like a civil union contract law to handle issues like joint ownership of property, child custody, and inheritance. That way anyone, gay, straight, or polygamist can get the legal benefits of marriage, and they can find a religious institution willing to conduct the religious ceremony.
- AznHisoka 14y ago
  I agree. I also don't think it's an issue worth devoting much time over. Just legalize it, and stop debating it. There's so many more relevant issues at stake in society.
- 3am_hackernews 14y ago
  Why should the government endorse practices only supported by you? You are not special. Marriage should not be a purely religious ceremony. It should be an individual's choice, consent of both the partners. I don't agree that a religious institution HAS to validate/conduct a religious ceremony. Again, it should be left to the individual.
  - learc83 14y ago
    >Why should the government endorse practices only supported by you? You are not special. I don't. However ~50% of American's don't support it. At the same time I don't think there is a legal reason to ban gay marriage. This is a proposed compromise between both sides.
    - 3am_hackernews 14y ago
      I would strongly contest that statistic you came up with. Please provide a source for it. While I appreciate that you don't think that gay marriage is illegal, I am not sure if I understand your basis of accepting a compromise.
- glhaynes 14y ago
  This seems like the optimal legal approach to me, too. And I'm not really sure why no progress is being made toward it: I've rarely if ever heard objection to it and a "government out of marriage" approach seems appealing to most people on either side of the gay-marriage-legality issue that I've spoken to. [Obviously this is anecdote and narrow at that.] I suppose it's just not politically possible right now — if it were to gather any steam, no doubt it'd get bogged down in "these people are trying to abolish marriage!"; and it seems likely a more difficult solution to legally execute well. But the immediate question, regardless of whether government should be involved in marriage or not, is whether we should pass laws to cause the government to treat this institution that it is involved in in a fair and equitable way (and reject laws that would enshrine unfairness).
- imgabe 14y ago
  We effectively already have that. A legal marriage is obtained completely independently from a religious marriage. The simple fact that the legal construct is called "marriage" seems to throw the religious types into a fervor, because they somehow think that changing the legal construct has some effect on their own religious use of the word. I guess the fact that words can have multiple meanings and be used in different ways is not taught in Sunday school. There's no reason to change the name of the legal agreement known as "marriage" to "civil union" other than to pacify the superstitious.
  - learc83 14y ago
    Culturally we make no distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. The majority of people aren't even really aware of the difference. So long as this is the case there will be opposition to any legally allowed civil marriage that doesn't follow the traditional definition. Do you want to have this fight every time a new type of union wants the legal protections of marriage? My solution is a compromise, the alternative is to have this fight for the next few years, and then a few years later start it all over again for poly-marriages. >There's no reason to change the name of the legal agreement known as "marriage" to "civil union" other than to pacify the superstitious. Since the "superstitious" make up a large percent of the country you might want to find a way to "pacify" them. If we can compromise so that the majority of people are happy and no one's rights are violated, where's the problem? Unless you just don't want to "pacify" the "superstitious" out of spite.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      > Culturally we make no distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. The majority of people aren't even really aware of the difference. Yet there it is, in black and white, in every statutory code in the country.
    - imgabe 14y ago
      So, we write our laws based on reason and justice, unless some religious group threatens to make a really big stink then we just do whatever they want? Is that a reasonable way to run a country? The statistics I was able to Google up show support for gay marriage at 43% of the US and against 47%. So it's not like it's some tiny percentage who are for it, and it's not even a majority who are against it. Personally, no, I don't want to have this fight. I also don't want to have to fight about evolution being taught in schools. Unfortunately some members of the population render this a necessity.
- TylerE 14y ago
  That is what a marriage (in the United States) is. It is a civil contract. There is nothing inherently religious about it. You can go down to the county courthouse, pay $20 or so, and be married by a judge. That some religions have a "marriage" ceremony is orthogonal. What makes you married in the legal sense is the marriage certificate you get from the government. Any ceremony is just for show. What the US Government defines as marriage is purely a civil thing.
  - learc83 14y ago
    I'm aware of that, but that's not the perception read my response up top for a more thorough explanation.
- mfringel 14y ago
  "Government out of the marriage business entirely" would be great. Also agreed on the government providing civil unions that give all the current rights and privileges currently set up under what is currently known as marriage. As far as I can tell, the only feasible way that we get there is by the states allowing same-sex marriage, and then the FedGov comes along for the ride, followed by FedGov doing a ''mutatis mutandis'' change in law to talk about civil unions.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > and we can establish something like a civil union contract law to handle issues like joint ownership of property, child custody, and inheritance. We have such a contract. It's called marriage. If you look at the law of marriage, there is nothing in there that's predicated on there being a woman and a man, and there is nothing in there that is specific to religion. In the United States, which never had ecclesiastic courts, marriage has always been a strictly civil, contractual legal construct. The problem with a civil union contract is that the law is full of references to marriage. E.g. in the law of evidence there is the principle of marital immunity, which is that spouses can't be forced to testify against each other in criminal trials. Do you want to go back and rewrite all of that?
  - true_religion 14y ago
    There are laws on the books full of references to "men" or occassionally "White men". The Americans, "re-wrote" all that by adding a few lines to the constitution saying that women and other races had equal rights as white men, and could not be discriminated against. Thus the old laws applied to everyone,without a need for someone to go at them with eraser and ink.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      I'm operating under the assumption that the "civil union" would be a separate legal construct, distinct from marriage, that defined its own rights for managing property, etc. Sure, it would be trivial to just say "gays can go down to the court house and get a civil union, and all civil unions should be treated exactly like marriages for the purpose of the law." But then civil unions are exactly the same thing as marriages.
      - true_religion 14y ago
        > " But then civil unions are exactly the same thing as marriages. That's right. Proponents of civil union say that everyone (including heterosexuals) should be granted civil union, and somewhere in the anals of law it should say "civil union is legally equivalent to marriage".
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- rsanchez1 14y ago
  The more I reflect on it, the more I convince myself that this philosophy on marriage is the best. Just eliminate a government definition of marriage altogether. Let marriage be defined by an individual person and their partner(s) based on what they believe. Generalize joint ownership, custody, etc. to any people who want to enter into a contract with each other. Considering how pro- and anti-gay marriage groups absolutely refuse to compromise, this approach makes the most sense to me.
Zirro 14y ago
As someone who isn't entirely familiar with this concept of pledging money for or against laws (I'm not from the US), I wonder: Where does this money go? Essentially, it sounds like you are buying the opinion of the people. Is it through advertising, or "bribes" to important individuals with power?
- Retric 14y ago
  Think of it like donating that money to PETA (or PETPeople). PETA's goal is not to bribe politicians into enacting pro animal legislation, but to change how people look at the issue or when most people agree with them they can then inform politicians of this so politicians will then 'toe the line' so as not to offend voters.
  - Zirro 14y ago
    I see. But how do they change the way people think about this kind of issue?
    - true_religion 14y ago
      People who are on the fence or ignorant of the issue now know about it, and can be swayed. People with deep but irrational convictions, can be pulled to rationality or vice versa. I'm not saying this specifically about PETA, but that's generally how campaigning works.
    - famousactress 14y ago
      With marketing. [Obviously subjective opinion ahead that reflects my personal take].. In California, Prop 8 (Same-Sex Marriage Ban) won because of money spent convincing the middle (people who frankly didn't really care much one way or another) that if gay marriage was legal then we'd start teaching kids to be gay in schools, or something. I'm not kidding. But yeah. 'Round here laws are products, and marketing is a huge part of how they're sold.
    - relaxatorium 14y ago
      It's less that money magically changes minds, and more a few other more important factors: 1) Awareness raising. A lot of people are partially or completely unaware of what laws are on the ballot, what initiatives actually mean and what the stakes are. 2) Driving turnout. This is actually probably much more important than #1. If you look at the statistics, the percentages of eligible voters who actually vote in elections is not incredibly high. Money can be used to ensure that people who are sympathetic to your cause are properly registered to vote, know where their polling places are, even literally give them transportation if they don't have it. For this issue, to take an example, it is extremely likely that college students are overwhelmingly for gay marriage, but a lot of them are not yet registered to vote, or are from out of state and haven't re-registered in Washington, so this kind of money lets pro-Marriage organizations have a heavy presence on campuses getting kids registered in the state, telling them where they need to go and when to vote, possibly even renting busses or vans if polling places are inconvenient for campuses.
walexander 14y ago
Does money really have any affect on issues like this? It's great Bezos is taking a stand, but what good will this do? What harm can really be done by Chik-Fil-A's CEO? Here in NC the amendment to ban same sex marriage passed with something like a 20% margin. That was despite anti-amendment spending beating them by 2:1 [1]. People have fairly deep convictions about these things and I don't think a campaign commercial is going to sway anyone's opinion. [1]http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/11021903/ http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/11021903/
- true_religion 14y ago
  The purpose of money isn't to sway the opinion of people, its to mobilize them into actually voting or to signal to those actually in power that this is an issue that you Man-with-deep-pockets cares about.
- mrgoldenbrown 14y ago
  Many states have a much closer margin, so swaying a few % can make or break a campaign. See the California case and all the money the Mormons dumped into the Prop 8 campaign. They used ads that basically lied about what allowing gay marriage would mean (saying things like schools would start encouraging kids to be gay), which helped scare just enough people.
  - sigzero 14y ago
    Please, they didn't scare anyone. When it is put up to a vote, in almost every instance, people vote for traditional marriage.
- ceras 14y ago
  In some states, though, the opinions are split closer to 50/50, and getting just a few more people to vote can make all the difference. I imagine Washington will be closer to passing than NC was. Also, in presidential elections liberals and young people have a lower turnout. Maybe the same applies here and many liberals and youth in favor of same-sex marriage wouldn't be heading out to vote without either some coaxing or raised awareness. Some people probably have weak opinions or are unsure: I think awareness would push these people toward voting in favor. Just guessing, but it really doesn't sound all for naught to me.
Xcelerate 14y ago
I find it odd that what people do with their own money gets so much attention. First Chick-fil-A's CEO, now Amazon's. For someone who is socially lacking, could someone explain to me why these generate so much news?
- true_religion 14y ago
  Their money spent is intended to affect change in the general population. It's not as if they just spent it on cars and caviar.
- bmac27 14y ago
  People gravitate towards these hot button, black or white issues. And when a major figure (be it a company, celebrity, athlete etc.) comes out for or against one of these issues, it generates a lot of unnecessary buzz. It's easy to rant about most people's priorities when it comes to the information they consumer (trivialities over real news) but the saddest thing to me is that the universally positive causes that public figures/companies etc. donate huge sums of money to (charities & the like) usually go unnoticed as a result.
- afterburner 14y ago
  The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support "biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his own personal money.
  - learc83 14y ago
    >The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support "biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his own personal money. Since it's a privately held company, I don't really see much difference. Also Chick-Fil-A has been well known for decades, as a company that supports biblical principles. I live in Georgia where they're from, and I don't think they'd be nearly as large as they are today without the brand loyalty that support has built them.
    - 14y ago
raldi 14y ago
> Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and that company’s CEO, Steve Ballmer, each pledged $100,000 to fight Referendum 74 They mean "to fight for" the referendum, right?
- ryanmolden 14y ago
  Confusingly enough probably not. Our governor signed the marriage act into law without it being on the ballot for public vote (correctly in my opinion). Referendum 74 was started as a way to force a public vote on the matter. The people who started it clearly think/want the public to reject the law. I am somewhat nervous about the vote as outside the King county area (Seattle, Redmond, etc...) the state can trend fairly conservative. So them fighting the referendum would mean fighting against putting this up for a public vote and fighting for leaving the law in place as it is. Edit: for more clarity in last sentence.
  - phil 14y ago
    Agreed, but that fight is over: it's going to be on the ballot.
- phil 14y ago
  That's what they meant. A yes vote on Ref 74 will legalize same-sex marriage.
chernevik 14y ago
Excellent. I can now express my view of heartily not giving a damn about my vendors' political opinions by reading a book bought at Amazon while eating a sandwich bought at Chik-Fil-A.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I'm curious why you talk about it like its a good thing. Market pressure to get rid of incorrect social views is the only alternative to legislative action to force such change. As a consumer buying a product, there are lots of things I value besides just the product I'm getting. I care about service, etc. Not being terrible people is also something I value, and I don't see anything wrong with reflecting that in my purchasing decisions.
  - nacker 14y ago
    "incorrect social views" ? Please let me know where to find the official canon of "correct social views", as I am anxious not to end up in the Gulag accidentally.
  - lkbm 14y ago
    Political advertising would also work. I'm opposed to dragging the vitriolic "I refuse to work with you because you're a Publican/Democrat/conservative/liberal/bleeding-heart/homophobe' behavior into a wider arena of life. I'm friends with and work with Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. and that's a GOOD thing. I don't want a world where our political differences mean we can't function as a society. I can't get my haircut there--he's racist or sexist or homophobic. No, he's a normally-okay dude who cuts my hair well. I don't know how to best express this. Jon Stewart kind of talked about it at the Rally for Sanity when he mentioned how we don't cut people off for having a McCain bumper sticker. Step one is to realize that being homophobic doesn't make you "terrible people". Three hundred years ago pretty much everyone was racist, sexist, and homophobic, but were in general as decent people as we are today; they just had some terrible beliefs, and terrible behaviors that came along with those beliefs.
    - deleted 14y ago
dragthor 14y ago
Hopefully some day I can marry multiple women. Or maybe some day hopefully a mother and son can marry. Who is to say? As long as we are all adults and love one another.
- tryitnow 14y ago
  Actually, yes, I agree with that. I have many friends who are varying degrees of polyamorous and I see no reason to deny them the right to have legal recognition of their relationships and all that entails (including joint property rights, medical visitation, inheritance, and everything else traditional families take for granted). As for mother and son, I personally find it distasteful, but why on earth should I care? Seriously? Are mother/son couples going to rise up and enslave us all, forcing us into incestuous mother-loving relationships? Why should politicians define the specifics of social arrangements? Laws should be a platform upon which people of all persuasions can develop their own ways of relating. Like an open source approach to social relations.
  - jonhendry 14y ago
    The parent and adult child combination arguably has potential for coercion that don't exist in other combinations, starting with "play along or you're disowned / out of the will / thrown out of the house".
- cobrausn 14y ago
  I know you're trolling, but I fully expect polygamists to see support for same sex marriage as a sign that they deserve the right to marry whom they choose as well, and start campaigning for it. I seriously doubt they will gain the same progressive fanfare, but I see it happening eventually. As for the second part - the risks of incest to the children of such couplings (who certainly can't consent to being the product of incest) are well known, and it's worth a few laws and a heavy dose of shame to prevent such outcomes.
  - dragthor 14y ago
    I am not trolling. People need to ask themselves - why not just redefine marriage as any two (or three or ten) people over the age of 18? There are lots of ways to prevent a child from being born. Still... any two consenting adults... brother-brother... brother-sister... sister-sister... should all be allowed to "marry". Redefining marriage is the radical point-of-view.
bcbrown 14y ago
Bezos has historically not given any high-profile donations, and the Seattle Times ran a series earlier this year bashing Amazon for its lack of "corporate citizenship". I wonder if this is a start of an effort to counteract that perception.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
briandear 14y ago
I wonder if Bezos will stop selling Chick Fil'A stuff. http://www.amazon.com/Pez-Chick-Fil-A-Cow-Sealed/dp/B003RMEBHG http://www.amazon.com/Pez-Chick-Fil-A-Cow-Sealed/dp/B003RMEB...
briandear 14y ago
Here's the short answer: government stay out of my life. Keep us from getting blown up, make sure we can get from one place to another and help keep my stuff from getting stolen. I'll take care of the rest. If people (Gay or Straight) want to have a corporate merger and agree to co-mingle assets, then they should have that right. If they want to join a church that bestows upon them the title of "married" then they should have that right, provided they meet the church's definition or requirements to achieve "marriage." If they don't agree with the church, they can start their own or just not have a church. The government should not be the arbiter of religious beliefs except in cases when religious beliefs directly compromise another's rights (i.e. honor killings.)
- mhurron 14y ago
  Despite what many people think, this has nothing to do with religious beliefs or institutions or said institutions conducting a wedding. It is entirely about the legal construct of marriage. By your own words this is the governments place as people are using their religious and moral beliefs to restrict others civil rights.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    No, it really does have a lot to do with religious beliefs and institutions because those are examples of the kinds of social communities which define marriage and the kinds of institutions which carry traditional culture. Traditional cultures are where the idea of marriage comes from and cultural communities are what give it any meaning. That doesn't mean all traditional ideas of marriage have been the same, they haven't (any more than cultural ideas of homosexuality or gender-bending have been the same). That doesn't mean you aren't free to choose or make your own religion. but doing so doesn't remove the historical context and social meaning of "marriage." Having me use a certain terminology with regard to your relationship (let alone believe certain things about your relationship) is NOT your civil right. It isn't the government's business to provide financial incentives for "marriage" either. You should be able to have any person you want to visit you in the hospital, however. Could be your horse trainer, why should it matter?

111 points by frankphilips 14y ago

Personally, I don't support same sex marriage, bug legally I see no real reason to ban it. However, I'd prefer the government who represents me, not endorse a practice I don't support. My solution for years has been for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely. Marriage should be a purely religious ceremony, and we can establish something like a civil union contract law to handle issues like joint ownership of property, child custody, and inheritance. That way anyone, gay, straight, or polygamist can get the legal benefits of marriage, and they can find a religious institution willing to conduct the religious ceremony.

AznHisoka 14y ago
I agree. I also don't think it's an issue worth devoting much time over. Just legalize it, and stop debating it. There's so many more relevant issues at stake in society.
3am_hackernews 14y ago
Why should the government endorse practices only supported by you? You are not special. Marriage should not be a purely religious ceremony. It should be an individual's choice, consent of both the partners. I don't agree that a religious institution HAS to validate/conduct a religious ceremony. Again, it should be left to the individual.
- learc83 14y ago
  >Why should the government endorse practices only supported by you? You are not special. I don't. However ~50% of American's don't support it. At the same time I don't think there is a legal reason to ban gay marriage. This is a proposed compromise between both sides.
  - 3am_hackernews 14y ago
    I would strongly contest that statistic you came up with. Please provide a source for it. While I appreciate that you don't think that gay marriage is illegal, I am not sure if I understand your basis of accepting a compromise.
glhaynes 14y ago
This seems like the optimal legal approach to me, too. And I'm not really sure why no progress is being made toward it: I've rarely if ever heard objection to it and a "government out of marriage" approach seems appealing to most people on either side of the gay-marriage-legality issue that I've spoken to. [Obviously this is anecdote and narrow at that.] I suppose it's just not politically possible right now — if it were to gather any steam, no doubt it'd get bogged down in "these people are trying to abolish marriage!"; and it seems likely a more difficult solution to legally execute well. But the immediate question, regardless of whether government should be involved in marriage or not, is whether we should pass laws to cause the government to treat this institution that it is involved in in a fair and equitable way (and reject laws that would enshrine unfairness).
imgabe 14y ago
We effectively already have that. A legal marriage is obtained completely independently from a religious marriage. The simple fact that the legal construct is called "marriage" seems to throw the religious types into a fervor, because they somehow think that changing the legal construct has some effect on their own religious use of the word. I guess the fact that words can have multiple meanings and be used in different ways is not taught in Sunday school. There's no reason to change the name of the legal agreement known as "marriage" to "civil union" other than to pacify the superstitious.
- learc83 14y ago
  Culturally we make no distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. The majority of people aren't even really aware of the difference. So long as this is the case there will be opposition to any legally allowed civil marriage that doesn't follow the traditional definition. Do you want to have this fight every time a new type of union wants the legal protections of marriage? My solution is a compromise, the alternative is to have this fight for the next few years, and then a few years later start it all over again for poly-marriages. >There's no reason to change the name of the legal agreement known as "marriage" to "civil union" other than to pacify the superstitious. Since the "superstitious" make up a large percent of the country you might want to find a way to "pacify" them. If we can compromise so that the majority of people are happy and no one's rights are violated, where's the problem? Unless you just don't want to "pacify" the "superstitious" out of spite.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > Culturally we make no distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. The majority of people aren't even really aware of the difference. Yet there it is, in black and white, in every statutory code in the country.
  - imgabe 14y ago
    So, we write our laws based on reason and justice, unless some religious group threatens to make a really big stink then we just do whatever they want? Is that a reasonable way to run a country? The statistics I was able to Google up show support for gay marriage at 43% of the US and against 47%. So it's not like it's some tiny percentage who are for it, and it's not even a majority who are against it. Personally, no, I don't want to have this fight. I also don't want to have to fight about evolution being taught in schools. Unfortunately some members of the population render this a necessity.
TylerE 14y ago
That is what a marriage (in the United States) is. It is a civil contract. There is nothing inherently religious about it. You can go down to the county courthouse, pay $20 or so, and be married by a judge. That some religions have a "marriage" ceremony is orthogonal. What makes you married in the legal sense is the marriage certificate you get from the government. Any ceremony is just for show. What the US Government defines as marriage is purely a civil thing.
- learc83 14y ago
  I'm aware of that, but that's not the perception read my response up top for a more thorough explanation.
mfringel 14y ago
"Government out of the marriage business entirely" would be great. Also agreed on the government providing civil unions that give all the current rights and privileges currently set up under what is currently known as marriage. As far as I can tell, the only feasible way that we get there is by the states allowing same-sex marriage, and then the FedGov comes along for the ride, followed by FedGov doing a ''mutatis mutandis'' change in law to talk about civil unions.
rayiner 14y ago
> and we can establish something like a civil union contract law to handle issues like joint ownership of property, child custody, and inheritance. We have such a contract. It's called marriage. If you look at the law of marriage, there is nothing in there that's predicated on there being a woman and a man, and there is nothing in there that is specific to religion. In the United States, which never had ecclesiastic courts, marriage has always been a strictly civil, contractual legal construct. The problem with a civil union contract is that the law is full of references to marriage. E.g. in the law of evidence there is the principle of marital immunity, which is that spouses can't be forced to testify against each other in criminal trials. Do you want to go back and rewrite all of that?
- true_religion 14y ago
  There are laws on the books full of references to "men" or occassionally "White men". The Americans, "re-wrote" all that by adding a few lines to the constitution saying that women and other races had equal rights as white men, and could not be discriminated against. Thus the old laws applied to everyone,without a need for someone to go at them with eraser and ink.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I'm operating under the assumption that the "civil union" would be a separate legal construct, distinct from marriage, that defined its own rights for managing property, etc. Sure, it would be trivial to just say "gays can go down to the court house and get a civil union, and all civil unions should be treated exactly like marriages for the purpose of the law." But then civil unions are exactly the same thing as marriages.
    - true_religion 14y ago
      > " But then civil unions are exactly the same thing as marriages. That's right. Proponents of civil union say that everyone (including heterosexuals) should be granted civil union, and somewhere in the anals of law it should say "civil union is legally equivalent to marriage".
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
rsanchez1 14y ago
The more I reflect on it, the more I convince myself that this philosophy on marriage is the best. Just eliminate a government definition of marriage altogether. Let marriage be defined by an individual person and their partner(s) based on what they believe. Generalize joint ownership, custody, etc. to any people who want to enter into a contract with each other. Considering how pro- and anti-gay marriage groups absolutely refuse to compromise, this approach makes the most sense to me.

Zirro 14y ago

As someone who isn't entirely familiar with this concept of pledging money for or against laws (I'm not from the US), I wonder: Where does this money go? Essentially, it sounds like you are buying the opinion of the people. Is it through advertising, or "bribes" to important individuals with power?

Retric 14y ago
Think of it like donating that money to PETA (or PETPeople). PETA's goal is not to bribe politicians into enacting pro animal legislation, but to change how people look at the issue or when most people agree with them they can then inform politicians of this so politicians will then 'toe the line' so as not to offend voters.
- Zirro 14y ago
  I see. But how do they change the way people think about this kind of issue?
  - true_religion 14y ago
    People who are on the fence or ignorant of the issue now know about it, and can be swayed. People with deep but irrational convictions, can be pulled to rationality or vice versa. I'm not saying this specifically about PETA, but that's generally how campaigning works.
  - famousactress 14y ago
    With marketing. [Obviously subjective opinion ahead that reflects my personal take].. In California, Prop 8 (Same-Sex Marriage Ban) won because of money spent convincing the middle (people who frankly didn't really care much one way or another) that if gay marriage was legal then we'd start teaching kids to be gay in schools, or something. I'm not kidding. But yeah. 'Round here laws are products, and marketing is a huge part of how they're sold.
  - relaxatorium 14y ago
    It's less that money magically changes minds, and more a few other more important factors: 1) Awareness raising. A lot of people are partially or completely unaware of what laws are on the ballot, what initiatives actually mean and what the stakes are. 2) Driving turnout. This is actually probably much more important than #1. If you look at the statistics, the percentages of eligible voters who actually vote in elections is not incredibly high. Money can be used to ensure that people who are sympathetic to your cause are properly registered to vote, know where their polling places are, even literally give them transportation if they don't have it. For this issue, to take an example, it is extremely likely that college students are overwhelmingly for gay marriage, but a lot of them are not yet registered to vote, or are from out of state and haven't re-registered in Washington, so this kind of money lets pro-Marriage organizations have a heavy presence on campuses getting kids registered in the state, telling them where they need to go and when to vote, possibly even renting busses or vans if polling places are inconvenient for campuses.

walexander 14y ago

Does money really have any affect on issues like this? It's great Bezos is taking a stand, but what good will this do? What harm can really be done by Chik-Fil-A's CEO? Here in NC the amendment to ban same sex marriage passed with something like a 20% margin. That was despite anti-amendment spending beating them by 2:1 [1]. People have fairly deep convictions about these things and I don't think a campaign commercial is going to sway anyone's opinion. [1]http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/11021903/ http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/11021903/

true_religion 14y ago
The purpose of money isn't to sway the opinion of people, its to mobilize them into actually voting or to signal to those actually in power that this is an issue that you Man-with-deep-pockets cares about.
mrgoldenbrown 14y ago
Many states have a much closer margin, so swaying a few % can make or break a campaign. See the California case and all the money the Mormons dumped into the Prop 8 campaign. They used ads that basically lied about what allowing gay marriage would mean (saying things like schools would start encouraging kids to be gay), which helped scare just enough people.
- sigzero 14y ago
  Please, they didn't scare anyone. When it is put up to a vote, in almost every instance, people vote for traditional marriage.
ceras 14y ago
In some states, though, the opinions are split closer to 50/50, and getting just a few more people to vote can make all the difference. I imagine Washington will be closer to passing than NC was. Also, in presidential elections liberals and young people have a lower turnout. Maybe the same applies here and many liberals and youth in favor of same-sex marriage wouldn't be heading out to vote without either some coaxing or raised awareness. Some people probably have weak opinions or are unsure: I think awareness would push these people toward voting in favor. Just guessing, but it really doesn't sound all for naught to me.

Xcelerate 14y ago

I find it odd that what people do with their own money gets so much attention. First Chick-fil-A's CEO, now Amazon's. For someone who is socially lacking, could someone explain to me why these generate so much news?

true_religion 14y ago
Their money spent is intended to affect change in the general population. It's not as if they just spent it on cars and caviar.
bmac27 14y ago
People gravitate towards these hot button, black or white issues. And when a major figure (be it a company, celebrity, athlete etc.) comes out for or against one of these issues, it generates a lot of unnecessary buzz. It's easy to rant about most people's priorities when it comes to the information they consumer (trivialities over real news) but the saddest thing to me is that the universally positive causes that public figures/companies etc. donate huge sums of money to (charities & the like) usually go unnoticed as a result.
afterburner 14y ago
The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support "biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his own personal money.
- learc83 14y ago
  >The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support "biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his own personal money. Since it's a privately held company, I don't really see much difference. Also Chick-Fil-A has been well known for decades, as a company that supports biblical principles. I live in Georgia where they're from, and I don't think they'd be nearly as large as they are today without the brand loyalty that support has built them.
  - 14y ago

raldi 14y ago

> Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and that company’s CEO, Steve Ballmer, each pledged $100,000 to fight Referendum 74 They mean "to fight for" the referendum, right?

ryanmolden 14y ago
Confusingly enough probably not. Our governor signed the marriage act into law without it being on the ballot for public vote (correctly in my opinion). Referendum 74 was started as a way to force a public vote on the matter. The people who started it clearly think/want the public to reject the law. I am somewhat nervous about the vote as outside the King county area (Seattle, Redmond, etc...) the state can trend fairly conservative. So them fighting the referendum would mean fighting against putting this up for a public vote and fighting for leaving the law in place as it is. Edit: for more clarity in last sentence.
- phil 14y ago
  Agreed, but that fight is over: it's going to be on the ballot.
phil 14y ago
That's what they meant. A yes vote on Ref 74 will legalize same-sex marriage.

chernevik 14y ago

Excellent. I can now express my view of heartily not giving a damn about my vendors' political opinions by reading a book bought at Amazon while eating a sandwich bought at Chik-Fil-A.

rayiner 14y ago
I'm curious why you talk about it like its a good thing. Market pressure to get rid of incorrect social views is the only alternative to legislative action to force such change. As a consumer buying a product, there are lots of things I value besides just the product I'm getting. I care about service, etc. Not being terrible people is also something I value, and I don't see anything wrong with reflecting that in my purchasing decisions.
- nacker 14y ago
  "incorrect social views" ? Please let me know where to find the official canon of "correct social views", as I am anxious not to end up in the Gulag accidentally.
- lkbm 14y ago
  Political advertising would also work. I'm opposed to dragging the vitriolic "I refuse to work with you because you're a Publican/Democrat/conservative/liberal/bleeding-heart/homophobe' behavior into a wider arena of life. I'm friends with and work with Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. and that's a GOOD thing. I don't want a world where our political differences mean we can't function as a society. I can't get my haircut there--he's racist or sexist or homophobic. No, he's a normally-okay dude who cuts my hair well. I don't know how to best express this. Jon Stewart kind of talked about it at the Rally for Sanity when he mentioned how we don't cut people off for having a McCain bumper sticker. Step one is to realize that being homophobic doesn't make you "terrible people". Three hundred years ago pretty much everyone was racist, sexist, and homophobic, but were in general as decent people as we are today; they just had some terrible beliefs, and terrible behaviors that came along with those beliefs.
  - deleted 14y ago

dragthor 14y ago

Hopefully some day I can marry multiple women. Or maybe some day hopefully a mother and son can marry. Who is to say? As long as we are all adults and love one another.

tryitnow 14y ago
Actually, yes, I agree with that. I have many friends who are varying degrees of polyamorous and I see no reason to deny them the right to have legal recognition of their relationships and all that entails (including joint property rights, medical visitation, inheritance, and everything else traditional families take for granted). As for mother and son, I personally find it distasteful, but why on earth should I care? Seriously? Are mother/son couples going to rise up and enslave us all, forcing us into incestuous mother-loving relationships? Why should politicians define the specifics of social arrangements? Laws should be a platform upon which people of all persuasions can develop their own ways of relating. Like an open source approach to social relations.
- jonhendry 14y ago
  The parent and adult child combination arguably has potential for coercion that don't exist in other combinations, starting with "play along or you're disowned / out of the will / thrown out of the house".
cobrausn 14y ago
I know you're trolling, but I fully expect polygamists to see support for same sex marriage as a sign that they deserve the right to marry whom they choose as well, and start campaigning for it. I seriously doubt they will gain the same progressive fanfare, but I see it happening eventually. As for the second part - the risks of incest to the children of such couplings (who certainly can't consent to being the product of incest) are well known, and it's worth a few laws and a heavy dose of shame to prevent such outcomes.
- dragthor 14y ago
  I am not trolling. People need to ask themselves - why not just redefine marriage as any two (or three or ten) people over the age of 18? There are lots of ways to prevent a child from being born. Still... any two consenting adults... brother-brother... brother-sister... sister-sister... should all be allowed to "marry". Redefining marriage is the radical point-of-view.

bcbrown 14y ago

Bezos has historically not given any high-profile donations, and the Seattle Times ran a series earlier this year bashing Amazon for its lack of "corporate citizenship". I wonder if this is a start of an effort to counteract that perception.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

briandear 14y ago

I wonder if Bezos will stop selling Chick Fil'A stuff. http://www.amazon.com/Pez-Chick-Fil-A-Cow-Sealed/dp/B003RMEBHG http://www.amazon.com/Pez-Chick-Fil-A-Cow-Sealed/dp/B003RMEB...

briandear 14y ago

Here's the short answer: government stay out of my life. Keep us from getting blown up, make sure we can get from one place to another and help keep my stuff from getting stolen. I'll take care of the rest. If people (Gay or Straight) want to have a corporate merger and agree to co-mingle assets, then they should have that right. If they want to join a church that bestows upon them the title of "married" then they should have that right, provided they meet the church's definition or requirements to achieve "marriage." If they don't agree with the church, they can start their own or just not have a church. The government should not be the arbiter of religious beliefs except in cases when religious beliefs directly compromise another's rights (i.e. honor killings.)

mhurron 14y ago
Despite what many people think, this has nothing to do with religious beliefs or institutions or said institutions conducting a wedding. It is entirely about the legal construct of marriage. By your own words this is the governments place as people are using their religious and moral beliefs to restrict others civil rights.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  No, it really does have a lot to do with religious beliefs and institutions because those are examples of the kinds of social communities which define marriage and the kinds of institutions which carry traditional culture. Traditional cultures are where the idea of marriage comes from and cultural communities are what give it any meaning. That doesn't mean all traditional ideas of marriage have been the same, they haven't (any more than cultural ideas of homosexuality or gender-bending have been the same). That doesn't mean you aren't free to choose or make your own religion. but doing so doesn't remove the historical context and social meaning of "marriage." Having me use a certain terminology with regard to your relationship (let alone believe certain things about your relationship) is NOT your civil right. It isn't the government's business to provide financial incentives for "marriage" either. You should be able to have any person you want to visit you in the hospital, however. Could be your horse trainer, why should it matter?