On Friday, October 24, Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple Inc. said in a statement on their website:
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.
Now, California’s “No on 8” campaign is modeling its television and web ad campaign based on Apple’s “Get a Mac” format.
“More Important Issues”
Direct link via YouTube here.
“Constitution”
Direct link via YouTube here.
“Gladiator”
Direct link via YouTube here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “ds” 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/Vice 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. – Source: McCain-Palin 2008
• 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
888-
It’s NATURAL to produce offspring so clearly in your worldview contraception of ANY kind (even the ancient rhythm method) is wrong. Since it’s natural to produce children we should encourage all women to have as many babies as possible. Every sex act should only be for the purpose of producing children. Anything BUT man on woman, vaginal sex is wrong and should be forbidden.
Let’s populate the planet! Cancer is natural my friend. So is mold.
The idea that there is only one way to be, live, co-exist, or love is rooted in judeo christian dogma.
Do you honestly believe with the enormous amount of hate and discrimination out there against homosexuality that it would EVER be someone’s CHOICE? It’s like choosing to be deformed in a world of perfect beauty. It’s not a choice..EXCEPT in the sense that it is a choice to follow one’s NATURAL proclivities and to seek freedom of who to love.
For the record…I’ve been with the same woman for thirty years…and I’m all male.
My PC has always been against equal rights.
My Macbook has always been for them.
Wow, Apple is so GAY.
It is an economically risky proposition indeed to permit the hitching of the “No to 8” to the very successful “I’m a Mac” campaign. It runs the risk of associating extraneous concerns to the matter of selecting a computing platform. It will be interesting to see if there is any fallout from this move.
@888eightyeight
Well your faulty logic states that if we allow gay marriage to stay in California the end of the human race will be upon us because in your mind it’s a choice to be gay rather than some people’s natural sexual orientation. So you seem to presume that it will catch on like a fashion or trend, like for example hoodies or mini skirts. And all people will eventually turn gay because of it.
PMSL How old are you?
OK so to take this theory of yours a little further, would you start sticking your Hampton in some other guys Khyber because say a couple of Doris’s moved in next door.
I thought not!!!
Gayness is about as much of a choice to straight people as heterosexuality is to gays.
I’m straight, and the thought of gay sex to me makes me shudder. And I am sure it would be the same for any straight male. But it doesn’t mean I believe gay people should “Choose to go straight” I have a few gay friends and they’d do anything for anybody. Real salt of the earth fellas. If they wanted to make a commitment then I’m all for it.
Think about this. A lot of gay guys are good looking blokes with great taste. If they decided to go straight they’d take the good looking chicks and the straight guys would be left with all the mingers.
Do you really think homosexuality is something a straight guy can choose. Don’t be silly! Could you have sex with another man? I know I couldn’t. It may not be normal to a straight guy to have sex with another man but it’s perfectly normal to someone who is that way orientated.
And some people are also bisexual. Mind you that does seem weird!
So the logical conclusion is that if someone is orientated to being attracted to people of the same sex it’s just something a percentage of people were naturally born with.
Gays won’t go straight if prop 8 comes into play and straight people won’t turn gay if it doesn’t.
I think what confuses homophobes is that a number of men have been married, had kids and then left their wives for another man. These people were already gay. From what I gather, these men were just oppressed by society so chose to live a lie. That doesn’t happen as much in a modern world because nowadays there is less of a stigma to being gay.
All prop 8 does is make a bunch of American’s look pathetic, religious bigots to the rest of the world.
And I too would like to know if any non-religious people are saying yes to prop 8.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Thank you Apple, I love you even more.
And don’t worry apple no fanboy will abandon the Mac.
Rush is a right wing pill popping nut case, he still uses a Mac.
888, Get out of the hole you’ve been living in.
SP, I’m not sure this is a good reason to give up Macs and suffer the rest of your life. First, not enough people will be doing that to affect Apple. Second, I am pretty sure you will continue to support many other companies who take the same position on this issue. You, and the rest of us, simply don’t know they take that position and won’t get around to calling them or writing them to find out. Apple is hardly alone in their position. Most of us have known Apple’s political philosophies for many years. But we don’t condemn ourselves into experiencing the slow death of having to use Windows. Separate the philosophy from the product.
Having said all that, I’ll tell you that I do agree with your dislike of Apple taking that public position. But I’m not giving up my Mac!
Hi all,
I am from Europe and do not normally interfere with the political or other controversies regarding the US, but in this case I have to make an input.
To present myself, I am a male, happily married to a woman, none of us has any bi-tendencies whatsoever (i.e. I think I am not metally/physically biased). But that is just my personal choice. My profession is as a senior scientist in medicine, mostly into molecular genetics and reproduction sciences (for many species). Said that, I have colleagues as well as friends that have chosen to love people of their own gender. And I have no problems with that whatsoever, It is their own choice. Just as my choice was my own.
Dear 888eightyeight, you do not need to worry for the well-being of our race. And no, I do not think you are “I’m stupid, ignorant, and all those other adjectives”, just a little bit afraid and miss-informed. Or set in your mind. And perhaps just a tad biased. Finally, perhaps a somewhat influenced by history and conservative thoughts. Remember that religious or other texts can be read in very different ways depending who is doing the interpretation. Like the law text.
It is known (and well-established) for a long time that a certain percentage individuals (differs by species) are homosexual (or bi-sexual) in the so-called “higher-species”. It is only in humans that this has not been clearly seen before (by induced fear). Actually, that number in humans (between 10-20%) is LOWER than the number of heterosexuals deciding not to have children. So, in our modern society, the couples that put carrier before family is actually a much bigger threat that fear of yours.
As for the ….. in the lower back-side ….. it is a great over-simplification. This is not about sex, it is about loving the one you care for. You make it easy for yourself in the classical FUD sense. Also, you leave out 50% of the population, that has nothing sticking out. Actually, female homosexuals are more common than male homosexuals.
Live well all of you, I would have voted “no” if I lived there…..
@ Uncle Festers Cousin:
“Should homosexual couples be given even footing with heterosexual couples with regards to adopting?
(here you go down a slippery slope, how many would not give their babies a chance for a better life (ie, put it up for adoption) if this was the case?) Also is this fair to the child (possibly infant) who can’t speak for himself?”
Why not? It’s not like children being adopted right now have a voice regarding who adopts them? What if the adopting parents are fundamentalist Muslims? Or fundamentalist Jews? Or Fundamentalist Christians? Or hardcore Atheists? The kid doesn’t have a say in the matter….
“How about: Should a private citizen (business owner) be forced to pay for his employee’s homosexual partner’s health care? (even if he is morally apposed to homosexuality)”
Again, why not? Flip that question around a bit- should a private citizen (business owner) be forced to pay for his employee’s out-of-wedlock children’s health insurance, even if he’s morally opposed to out-of-wedlock sex? Should a private citizen (business owner) be forced to pay for his employee’s health insurance if his employee gets a divorce (even if he is morally opposed to divorce)?
“Civil unions (which are legal) currently provide for most (or all) of what I hear people using as talking points, rThis is about wheather or not is is OK forcing everyone to agree that homosexuality should be no different that a normal marriage (which is what the Judge believed and thus ruled, the legality of that notwithstanding) When you begin to try to force you beliefs on every one you cross the line, no matter weather you are standing on the right or left side of that line.”
*IF* “civil unions” had ALL of the same legal implications as “marriage”, then I don’t think there would as much of an issue here. The problem is that they generally don’t. As far as I can tell, allow homosexuals to marry isn’t forcing anyone’s beliefs on every one else- those who are not homosexual will likely not marry a member of the same sex. They are not forced to approve of it. They are only forced to not discriminate because of it, much like society forces employers to disregard religion, age, sex, and marital status for almost all jobs. This is no different.
I’m married, and I fail to see how two homosexuals getting married impacts my marriage. Personally, I’d rather two people of any sex, in a stable, long term relationship, than folks getting married and then divorced a few years later. I have no moral problem with divorce, but I think divorce is much more of a drain on society than any gay marriage would be.
Some of these post scare me… How can the US compete on the world stage with such ignorant and anti-intellectual citizens!
People who denying evolution, with the huge amount of evidence supporting it simply are not rational beings.
These say people are saying all sorts of vague things about how same sex marriage hurts heterosexual marriages … But never say exactly how.
If marriage is all about procreation, should people have to take fertility tests before marriage, and if they fail be denied a license?
Would societal acceptance mean teh end to heterosexuality? Hardly … Homosexuality is not catching
Life is hard for those that are “different” in ANY way , and more often then not the are different from YOU simply how they were born. Why make their lives harder? Why cause more suffering? Is that what religion is all about… causing suffering?
– Brenda
888-
So you are suggesting that because homosexuals do not reproduce, they should be refused rights? So we should deny rights to infertile women and impotent men? To mentally challenged individuals who usually will not reproduce? So we should tell a man who has a vasectomy that he cannot legally wed? Because by your argument, any individual who is incapable of reproduction should not be allowed to marry. Good call.
Or perhaps you’re saying that we should force homosexuals to copulate and reproduce? Because regardless of whether or not they have the right to marry, they still won’t reproduce. They’re lack of ability to legally marry will not make them turn around and say, “Oh well, I guess I better stop (as you so perfectly put it) putting my penis in men’s butts, and start sticking my penis in a vagina. Because that’s all marriage means to me, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex.”
Have you ever spoken to a gay man? Or a lesbian woman? Have you ever been friends with one? Or do you believe that they are so immoral and wrong that you cannot stand to be around them?
Learn something about equality, and about tolerance.
For the record, I am not gay, but two of my best friends are. And I find it appalling that you want to deny my best friends the right to be with the men they love and receive the same rights that I and the woman I love have. People say homosexuality is destroying America. I say people like you are destroying America with your intolerance.
As a gay man, I don’t really understand why we’re continually having all this discussion about gay marriage. Marriage is an overwhelming failure. There is no way we would allow doctors to continue performing an operation, if more than 50% of the patients who received it died. Straight people have made a mockery of marriage. I think we need to come up with something better that allows all the same rights (which would include both gay and straight people) and leave the marriage ‘tradition’ to it’s own fate.
America is proving to the world – yet again – that its full of morons. Hopefully this time they’ll be in the minority. Gezzz, someone please, fix that country.
I don’t agree with MDN’s implication that Jobs is getting into politics and therefore contradicting himself. I agree with Apple that this is a civil rights issue and it’s appropriate for Apple to support in a wider context what they have already granted to their own employees. And I couldn’t agree with them more.
@Uncle Fester’s Cousin
So are you arguing that homosexual couples cannot raise children as well as heterosexual couples? So Brittany Spears and K-Fed are better parents than one of my friends’ mother and her lesbian partner? Oh, and my friend, she’s straight. Absolutely no homosexual tendencies. Yes, she also has a straight father, who is of a religion that is extremely against homosexuality, but she was raised by her mother and her mother’s partner. Your argument that homosexual adoptions are wrong is completely ass-backwards and just plain wrong, Good parents are not made by being straight or gay.
Oh, and 888: your accusation of “gay” being “stolen” by homosexuals, it was actually a cruel branding of homosexuals by heterosexuals. Homophobes stole the word. In other words, you stole the word.
I dont think that homosexuality is so great.
Its not a good idea.
BUT – some people like it and want it, and as it doesnt impact on society very much, then why worry about it?
The sheer joy of a slippery vagina will always win over anal sex.
Nuff said.
Marriage is a societal construct to stop other guys screwing your woman, or to stop your husband from running around.
It actually doesnt work, but folks continue to think it does.
If gay people want to play at the useless and nonsensical construct called marriage, let them.
More importantly, if there are benfits that society chooses to give to the memebers of the nutty ‘marriage’ thing, then all should be able to get them, no matter which orifices they want to play with and/or avoid.
A good society doesnt discrminate on orifice preference. Think about it.
Actually I think this has more to do with taxes than what is wrong or right with gay marriage. The taxing authorities don’t want just everyone shacking up and claiming a tax status. It will dilute the tax benefits that is given for creating a family. If there is no clear definition then people will be able to take advantage of the system.
It gets even more complicated in a polyamorous relationships. I could have 5 wives and who are you to say this is not a legit relationship? 5 wives = 5 deductions, even if we aren’t really married but just living in a household together taking advantage of the tax system.
Thats ‘benefits’ and ‘members’ – thats what happens when I get thrown on to page 2 – the humanity!
Who would want to be a ‘Page 2’ person? Let gays marry if thats what they want.
I mean, if all those closet gays in the US Army could marry, then they might stop shooting innocent brown people all over the planet.
That would be cool.
SpeedyG – I LIKE your thinking! A LOT!
Mmmm – 5 wives, no tax. Hubba Hubba!
Huh and thats 5 periods, 5 naggings, 5 support payments when you divorce, 5 sets of kids so between 10-25 college payments, 5 trips to couple counseling, Think of the health care bill alone!
I think I will stick with the 1 I have.
While it does suck that Apple had to get involved politically, they are not alone in doing this kid of crap. Also, dumping Apple because of this and going back to MS is pointless!
MS is just as “bad”…worse even!
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501266.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/06/AR2005050601593.html
All major companies should shut-up on issues like this to avoid losing sales from either side…I would think that is the logical thing to do?
In the “Constitution” ad, the “NO on Prop 8” kid clearly says “sore-y” instead of “sorry”.
Thus, he’s obviously Canadian and a Fraud.
Take another listen; you’ll see…or hear.
@888eightyeight
Assuming that you have never placed your virile member into another man’s anus and thrust it to and fro, I conclude that you have no idea whatsoever whether it works as well there as in the female pleasure organ. Your assertion vis-a-vis insertion shows how biased your uninformed viewpoint actually is.
***RANT (Mostly @ 888)****
What’s with all this interest in peoples sexual habits? When you see two people together is ‘if or how’ they have sex the first thing you think of? When they decide to marry do you only think of the wedding night? That’s pretty shallow thinking no? Why do you feel it is any business of yours? Consider there are plenty of same sex as well as opposite sex couples that choose not to have sexual relations and plenty of others that choose to have sex with both or many. These facts of life are not the issue though.
California’s same sex marriage proposition has nothing to do with sex of any kind. It has everything to do with monetary benefits and property rights for people that choose to share their lives and resources. Bringing sex into it is simply a scare tactic with little basis.
The problem begging resolution is that the government is giving financial advantages to opposite sex couples in the forms of tax discounts and the division of assets upon the dissolution of the relationship, but only IF that couple has signed a marriage contract (or in some states have simply lived together for a period of time). This is discriminatory to an increasing portion of the populace who are choosing a same gender relationship for whatever reason (sexual practices notwithstanding). No matter what our views are on sexual orientation, we need to recognize this disparity.
Some time ago the government had to modify the marriage process in order to protect another portion of it’s citizens. They began granting divorces against the wishes of the church and an outspoken populace. At the time it was predominantly to provide civil rights to women who were abused by their male spouses under the auspices of traditional religion whose doctrines didn’t allow divorce and whose marriage vows declared the female to be subservient. Although you can now get a divorce on any grounds, I think the majority would still agree that there is no societal benefit in forcing people that hate each other to live together and the division of their mutually acquired property should be equitable when they split up.
This time around people are objecting to government intervention in the marriage process by playing up the sexual aspect. The bottom line is that it makes no sense to deny equal financial incentives to couples that choose to contribute something to our society besides children.
Personally, I’d rather live next door to a well mannered same sex couple that has made a commitment to adopt an unwanted child than a frustrated traditional couple that has stopped having sex after producing more offspring than they can afford or have time to deal with simply because birth control was not condoned or practiced.
Sometimes old values have to change. This is one of those times.
***On Topic***
Apple saw this disparity long ago (as have many other top corporations since) and implemented a fair benefit plan for it’s employee’s. While I agree that corporations risk alienating customers by taking political or religious positions, Apple has always been about telling us what we need so I’m not anymore surprised that they took a position on this than I am that they removed the Firewire port from the Macbook
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
To 888eightyeight
If gay people can marry, every man will not go gay. Therefore, not every couple will stop reproducing, to the end of society will not be nigh.
There is a difference between homosexuality and murder. Murder takes another person’s right to live, homosexuality takes away no one’s rights.
Gay people have been around for years (ie. Will Shakespeare), and the world’s population has increased. Marriage will not increase homosexuality, the world will continue.
Stop insinuating that homosexuals stole the word gay, its childish. Ever heard of the first amendment, freedom of speech?
If gays are forced to not be able to marry in the US, they will simply go to a country that does not have this preposterous law. Do you want Americans to leave their country looking for freedom? How would that look to the rest of the world?
In conclusion 888, imagine if the roles were reversed, and you could not marry the person you loved, even in a free society. How would you feel? Just let gay people have their way, I promise the world will not end.