[RowdyScot]

I always thought it was GBLT.

Guess that shows how much attention I give to detail.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by ShadowOfGed Is that a Gay BLT? Sandwich?

Yes, that is the joke. I know someone who used to say it all the time, and now I can't stop.

It's probably funnier if you were there.

[T-Man]

Originally Posted by screensaver400 . . .social, non-company related issue.

Like said a few times already: Apple has homosexual employees. This isn't a non-company issue.

This act won't benefit Apple as a company in any way.

Makes me proud to be an Apple user on a human level, alongside the designer level.

That said, I won't be voting for Proposition 8 (nor will I be voting against it). I think California has much more pressing issues.

Equal rights aren't pressing? Two (religious*) men or women who want to marry themselves in a church that supports them but can't legally marry them isn't pressing? I can't make you vote, but human matters don't deserve to be pushed aside just because the economy's falling, we're high on oil, the war's costing us financially and in lives, and whatever else that's more material.

* I use religious, because as an atheist, civil union is enough for me (assuming it's simply marriage in a secular name). But I support 'gay religion', because it is an oppression of religious GBLTs' *cough* right to holily marry, as they see it. I really don't understand actually how 'gay religion' hasn't been used to make more headway, because the US is supposed to have the freedom of religion, and if GLBTs' religion says it's fine for them to marry, it's a matter of the oppression of religion. Hm... I can't wait for "Go small government!" to get out of the marriage business.

Originally Posted by screensaver400 I think Apple would do just as well when it comes to recruiting potential gay employees if they stayed neutral. As long as a company isn't anti-gay, I don't think gays will have any problem working for it.

IMO, standing up and being for it is a little better than neutral, and while I had no problem with Apple before this donation, I have even less a problem with them now.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by screensaver400 This act won't benefit Apple as a company in any way.

As others have already pointed out, this action both directly and indirectly benefits Apple. By standing up in the face of bigotry, Apple is showing that it cares about progressive social issues and that it is trying to protect the rights of its workers. Like it or not, state-sanctioned marriage has over a thousand (literally, from gao.gov) legal and financial benefits.

Originally Posted by screensaver400 That said, I won't be voting for Proposition 8 (nor will I be voting against it). I think California has much more pressing issues.

It's hugely important because it's a matter of discrimination. This is in the same league as legislation in the early 20th century that discriminated against blacks and women. Just because it doesn't directly impact you (assuming you're not gay) doesn't mean that it isn't as pressing as or more so than arguing about whether or not to keep farm chickens in cages (California prop 2) or mandating parental consent before someone can get an abortion (California prop 4).

What if this was an amendment to the California constitution to prevent interracial people from marrying? Or to prevent non-christians from marrying? Or any other arbitrary combination that certain religious groups disapprove? What's next, sinners who haven't repented or been saved can't marry?

It boils down to the simple matter of enacting sexual discrimination into the state constitution. By not voting when given the chance, you're saying that you don't care that people are losing rights to no fault of their own.

[RowdyScot]

Originally Posted by T-Man * I use religious, because as an atheist, civil union is enough for me

Civil unions typically only give less than 40 of the 1000+ benefits granted by marriage. Sure it's enough?

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Brad As others have already pointed out, this action both directly and indirectly benefits Apple. By standing up in the face of bigotry, Apple is showing that it cares about progressive social issues and that it is trying to protect the rights of its workers. Like it or not, state-sanctioned marriage has over a thousand (literally, from gao.gov) legal and financial benefits. It's hugely important because it's a matter of discrimination. This is in the same league as legislation in the early 20th century that discriminated against blacks and women. Just because it doesn't directly impact you (assuming you're not gay) doesn't mean that it isn't as pressing as or more so than arguing about whether or not to keep farm chickens in cages (California prop 2) or mandating parental consent before someone can get an abortion (California prop 4). What if this was an amendment to the California constitution to prevent interracial people from marrying? Or to prevent non-christians from marrying? Or any other arbitrary combination that certain religious groups disapprove? What's next, sinners who haven't repented or been saved can't marry? It boils down to the simple matter of enacting sexual discrimination into the state constitution. By not voting when given the chance, you're saying that you don't care that people are losing rights to no fault of their own.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^truth.

I think one of either two things will inevitably happen. Either A), the government will "allow" gay couples to marry (and get all the legal benefits that entails), or B) the government will get the fuck out of the marriage business. Civil unions would serve the legal side of things, "marriage" would be a purely religious term, and it would be up to the religious bodies to decide who can marry whom. As long as everybody can enjoy the legal benefits of civil unions, I don't give a shit, and religious fundamentalists can keep their precious "sanctity of marriage." (Bigotry would, of course, continue to exist, but at least it wouldn't be encoded in our laws.) Many people would continue to join in a civil union and marriage at the same time, although I think people who don't really care about religion would increasingly "only" join in civil unions.

I say that's inevitable, because I really don't think things are suddenly going to go back to the olden days when nobody admitted to being gay. (I'd contest there was never really such a time, but whatevs.) No matter how much fundies would love to force our nation to regress to some Puritanical era, that's simply not the direction things are headed. Even if Prop 8 passes this year, I'm sure it will, eventually, become nullified. After all, it is plainly discriminatory. Even its proponents will tell you that.

And I don't think the people who want to discriminate ever win for very long.

America loves to lag behind the rest of the world on these sorts of things, which is embarrassing. But eventually we'll get there. We always do.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Roboman I say that's inevitable... Even if Prop 8 passes this year, I'm sure it will, eventually, become nullified... And I don't think the people who want to discriminate ever win for very long... eventually we'll get there. We always do.

Can't agree with you more here. You're totally right. Equal rights for gays are only a matter of time. Something like Prop 8 passing would only be a minor setback, a delay. There is a tidal wave (a rainbow tidal wave!) on its way and it doesn't matter how much people want to stop it. All they can do is delay it here and there.

[T-Man]

Originally Posted by RowdyScot Civil unions typically only give less than 40 of the 1000+ benefits granted by marriage. Sure it's enough?

I assumed that weren't the case; so, no, it's not enough. I always thought of civil union as a secular marriage in heterosexual-only civil union states (if those exist?..), but apparently I was wrong and I guess even atheists get 'married', just by a judge then. But that's what civil union should be: government "marriage" that doesn't discriminate. Let the churches marry. Oh but that would be to disestablishmentarianistic...

[Brad]

Originally Posted by T-Man but apparently I was wrong and I guess even atheists get 'married', just by a judge then.

Specifically, a "Justice of the Peace".

[T-Man]

Originally Posted by Brad Specifically, a "Justice of the Peace".

Ah. I'll be getting me one of those someday then...