“Apple is contributing $100,000 to fight Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman,” Michelle Quinn reports for The Los Angeles Times.
The Cupertino, Calif.-based company said in a statement:
Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights– including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.
Qunin reports, “Some supporters of Prop. 8 have said they would protest businesses that actively oppose the measure unless they make similar donations to ProtectMarriage.com, which is trying to overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriages.”
Full article here.
[Attribution: MacNN. Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Mark” for the heads up.]
MacDailyNews Take:
Some people have said that I shouldn’t get involved politically because probably half our customers are Republicans – maybe a little less, maybe more Dell than ours. But I do point out that there are more Democrats than Mac users so I’m going to just stay away from all that political stuff because that was just a personal thing. – Apple CEO Steve Jobs, August 2004
So much for that.
MacDailyNews Note: Since we’re so close to a national election, and for clarity’s sake as sometimes “confusion” over candidates’ positions occurs in reader feedback, here are the positions and statements of all four of the major party candidates for U.S. President regarding how this issue should be handled or not handled at the federal level:
• John McCain:
As president, John McCain would nominate judges who understand that the role of the Court is not to subvert the rights of the people by legislating from the bench. Critical to Constitutional balance is ensuring that, where state and local governments do act to preserve the traditional family, the Courts must not overstep their authority and thwart the Constitutional right of the people to decide this question.
The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.
As with most issues vital to the preservation and health of civil society, the basic responsibility for preserving and strengthening the family should reside at the level of government closest to the people. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers reserved for the States the authority and responsibility to protect and strengthen the vital institutions of our civil society. They did so to ensure that the voices of America’s families could not be ignored by an indifferent national government or suffocated through filibusters and clever legislative maneuvering in Congress.
• Sarah Palin:
Not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that’s sometimes where those steps lead.
But I also want to clarify, if there’s any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don’t agree with me on this issue.
But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties. But I will tell Americans straight up that I don’t support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.
But I’m being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage. – Source: 2008 Vice-Presidential Debate
• Barack Obama:
Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.
Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples. – Source: Obama-Biden 2008
• Joseph Biden:
Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted — same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That’s only fair.
It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I’m glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that’s the case, we really don’t have a difference. – Source: 2008 Vice-Presidential Debate
right on brothers. fight the power.
i was starting to think steve lost his hippie hipness
good for them. having morals means fighting back against the scum that want to deny equal rights. it is nice to know i can support them even more whole heartedly.
I think that they (same sex partners) should be should be able to enjoy the same misery like the rest of us.
Sick! I loathe when companies get political! Give the money to charity instead of trying to redefine marriage! Liberals who support this make me sick! I’m troubled this kind of news made it here, but what the hell? I get what I pay for!
They might play for the other team but we all play the same game.
@jeff
thats a good line.
And yet still no pink iPhone. Just kidding.
I know that this will get under some peoples’ skin. But then those people weren’t born gay and don’t have a clue what it means to be persecuted for something beyond their control.
Good on Apple. Always ahead of the curve — this time politically.
Can 2 women conceive a child by themselves?
Can 2 men conceive a child by themselves?
It’s ridiculous! And, an ABOMINATION!!!
Giving people rights because of a sexual perversion does not make sense.
On top of that, giving them power over normal people who are against sexual perversion is worse!
I think the “State” should be out of the marriage business. This is a religious topic and should be handled within people’s religious lives.
I understand the need for a legal union. And, the state should only be handling legal unions. Anyone should be able to go to the “State” and form a legal union.
Why stop there.
I now pronounce you man, and ape.
And Microsoft donates $200,000 to the supporters of the ban just in spite. No, not really, it wouldn’t surprise me though.
Next will be the legalization of pedophilia!
I have a feeling, this is to appease the constant whiners for FW in the MB crowd.
Just like typical libs, they’re all for openness and fairness as long as you agree with them. You’re never allowed to dare disagree with them in any way, nor entitled to hold any type of differing opinion. If you do then you’re automatically labelled by them as a bigot or a racist. So much for their so called openness and fairness eh? Anyways, Apple needs to stay the hell out of politics and stick to business.
Someone take the pen and check book away from Al Gore. This should NOT be a company that go against the people of California and supports the judges.
Please please please say out of politics Apple! Don’t make me think less of you…
Though I applaud people taking a stand on issues they believe in, I hate when companies do it. Why pick a side in a political issue with your business and alienate half your potential customers. I am a conservative, I know Steve is not, I would not care if he made a personal contribution to a cause he believes in, it is his money. However, if the company has money to spend on such things then I would prefer that he give it to an employee that has helped the company or lower the price of Mac’s by a penny than to use it alienating the people he wants to sell to.
I am no idiot, Macs are better, I will keep using them, but there will be some that will be willing to suffer with windows rather than give money to a company that is opposing their political views.
BTW: I would say the same thing if they gave the money to the other side. It simply does not make sense to bring your politics into your business – it can only hurt you.
I’m for happy marriages too!
Let’s see if Apple is bold enough to bring back the rainbow Apple logo.
Well, one needn’t be gay to understand that prop 8 is wrong. Those who support it are self-righteous hypocrites who flaunt their bigotry under the banner of ‘religion’ thinking that they can pass it off as morally sound.
One of my favorite pro 8 ads running here in California states that churches will loose their tax-exempt status is gay marriage is allowed. What they don’t tell you is that they will loose that status because they will actively be engaging in discriminatory practices.
They also like to say that “…. schools would be forced to teach children that gay marriage is ok…” which is also complete nonsense. First of all, schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage on any level; I certainly never had a class discussion on the topic. Secondly, even if they teach it, the preposterousness of saying that teaching kids not to discriminate is somehow a bad thing is epic beyond words.
I applaud Apple for making a stand on this, I wish more companies would demonstrate this type of conscious awareness.
why oh why Apple?
why waste money on this?
everyone already has the same rights.
Anyone who votes for Proposition 8 is simply a bigot, plain and simple. There is no other way to categorize any supports of Proposition 8. BIGOTS!
Wow, Barack Obama is getting way out there. “other legally-recognized unions” WHAT IS THAT? Barack, what are you not telling us about your past here? Does Michael know about this?
As a Canadian I can tell you that the debate was hot and heavy here before we got equal marriage. Now, more than four years later iit’s an non-issue. The sky has not fallen.
It was well done deal.
Marriages are civil arrangements between two people and at the beginning same-sex marriages were only performed at city hall. Now a growing number of churches perform same-sex marriages, too.
You guys are so behind the curve of civilization it isn’t funny. Even catholic Spain and France have same-sex civil unions.