On October 24, 2008, Apple Inc. announced via their website:
Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. 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.
Jessica Garrison, Cara Mia DiMassa and Nancy Vogel report today for The LA Times, “A measure to once again ban gay marriage in California was passed by voters in Tuesday’s election, throwing into doubt the unions of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who wed during the last 4 1/2 months.”
“Elsewhere in the country, two other gay-marriage bans, in Florida and Arizona, also won. In both states, laws already defined marriage as a heterosexual institution. But backers pushed to amend the state constitutions, saying that doing so would protect the institution from legal challenges,” Garrison, DiMassa and Vogel report. “Proposition 8 was the most expensive proposition on any ballot in the nation this year, with more than $74 million spent by both sides.”
“Most of the state’s highest-profile political leaders — including both U.S. senators and the mayors of San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles — along with the editorial pages of most major newspapers, opposed the measure. PG&E, Apple and other companies contributed money to fight the proposition, and the heads of Silicon Valley companies including Google and Yahoo took out a newspaper ad opposing it,” Garrison, DiMassa and Vogel report. “On the other side were an array of conservative organizations, including the Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and the American Family Assn., along with tens of thousands of small donors, including many who responded to urging from Mormon, Catholic and evangelical clergy.
Full article here.
The “NO on Prop 8” group has so far refused to concede and issued the following statement:
Roughly 400,000 votes separate yes from no on Prop 8 — out of 10 million votes tallied. Based on turnout estimates reported yesterday, we expect that there are more than 3 million and possibly as many as 4 million absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted. Given that fundamental rights are at stake, we must wait to hear from the Secretary of State tomorrow about how many votes are yet to be counted as well as where they are from.
It is clearly a very close election and we monitored the results all evening and this morning. As of this point, the election is too close to call.
Because Prop 8 involves the sensitive matter of individual rights, we believe it is important to wait until we receive further information about the outcome.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers too numerous to mention for the heads up.]
For thousands upon thousands of years of human history, marriage has been defined as a union between man and woman. And yet we’re arrogant enough to think we, in our small corner of history called “the present”, can simply declare it with a new definition?
It’s easier to point fingers and name-call, than it is to understand just what an sweeping attempt this is to fundamentally redefine an institution which has established history going beyond any one race, any one religion, any one culture.
The fact that Prop 8 addresses only the *legal* definition of marriage, doesn’t change the weight of history and culture behind it.
Here’s a question: If gay marriage becomes legalized across the country, will devout heterosexuals stop getting “married” and start doing something else, such as “Engaging in Holy Union”?
So much headache over a single word. But so long as my child-in-law pays the dowry in Mac Hardware I’m sure we’ll get along fine.
The government should get out of the business of tracking personal relationships. Marriage, gay unions, whatever. There is no longer a point.
When Apple publicly made a stance and put money on the line, it sat wrong with a lot people because people feel companies should stay out of the social engineering business.
Ok, now the arguement from the yes on 8 people is that the democracy has spoken to remove a civil right from a portion of the population based on their religious views. Answer me this… how is that any different than the popular vote of the 50s to disallow blacks the right to vote? Or not allowing Women the right to vote in the early 1900s?
Call it whatever you want, but the reality of the situation is that popular opinion is not always right nor is it legal. I fully expect this proposition to be challenged in court and eventually removed regardless of the current results.
Equality for everyone, and separation of church and state! That is America! And anyone who says differently can pack their bags and move to country where religion rules the government. I hear Iran is nice.
“ericdano, group 1 should not be able to tell group 2 what they can and cannot do, particularly when no one’s getting hurt by group 2’s actions. Just because a majority of the people don’t like it, doesn’t give them the right to tell the minority they can’t do it. It’s all about you trying to control someone else’s life, and that, my friend, is a psychosis.”
Gee Horseman, that is called GOVERNMENT. How about one group saying to the other that it needs to pay more in taxes? Is that not the SAME THING?
I know, how about this, why don’t we let everyone just do what they want. If you want to pay taxes, then you can. If you want to skip, you do that too. If you want to speed, why not? Why should ONE group tell the other group they cannot do it? What if I want to rob a store? Why can’t I do that?
We have rules. We voted on them. That is called Government. That is the way it works. If you want to change things, you put it up for a vote. We did. It didn’t pass. End of story.
A great day for democracy.
@ericdano
this mentality baffles be, and frankly is extremely ignorant. “they try to force their views on on” doesn’t fly, because you, ignorant one, are forcing your views on them. Religion has no place in government, which is exactly why we declared our independence from Britain (and of course the taxation without representation). Now, 200+ years later, the fundamentalist “christians” are persecuting, and imposing their will into our shattered constitution.
If you insist on placing this before the US Supreme Court, you are just asking for the American public to pass an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. That is all that you and your friends accomplished in California and a MAJORITY of US states. Do you really want to have this defined in the US Constitution? If so, fine with me.
Kate
It is amazing how one side, the people who want Gay Marriage will not tolerate the other sides view even after Democracy has spoken.
…and it’s nice to see that people can still preach tolerance and acceptance for same-sex marriages, yet in the same breath spew intolerance and hatred for all religions anywhere. Is it too much to ask for some consistency?
The greatest threat to democracy, in my mind, is these groups of people who have it stuck in their mind that THEIR WAY IS THE ONE TRUE PATH, and anyone in their way is evil incarnate.
That’s not how democracy works. Whether you like the results or not, you have to accept the outcome of the democratic process. Cultural change resulting from new laws crammed down the throats of an unwilling populace cannot succeed, and will only provoke backlash.
The more people we have who simply refuse to accept the outcome of a legitimate democratic process – whatever the outcome – the closer our country approaches self-destruction.
Marriage is a civil contract. Currently, atheists are allowed to marry. I don’t see any reason why people should be barred from entering into a civil contract, just because it has the same name as a church rite for which they might be ineligible. It violates the 14th amendment of the US constitution, which regulates state laws and constitutions.
So far as the church rite is concerned, this proposition prohibits at least four large religious groups from performing marriages between gay people. In other words, it makes it into an illegal religious rite. That violates the first amendment of the US constitution.
A Methodist minister married my sister to a child molester. Ted Bundy got married while on death row for mass murder. If neither of those two events destroyed religious marriage, then gay people marrying each other won’t either.
Proposition 8 is immoral, wrong, and illegal.
Ezekiel 16
It was WRONG for Apple to get involved in anyway, bad image.
“this mentality baffles be, and frankly is extremely ignorant. “they try to force their views on on” doesn’t fly, because you, ignorant one, are forcing your views on them. Religion has no place in government, which is exactly why we declared our independence from Britain (and of course the taxation without representation). Now, 200+ years later, the fundamentalist “christians” are persecuting, and imposing their will into our shattered constitution.”
What? So, even though we had it up for a vote, and the people spoke, you still won’t accept it? Look here, ignorant one, read up on how Democracy works.
@ ericdano
I guess in your democracy, if a racist state passed a proposition by a majority that said brown-skinned people cannot “marry”, then that would be right and fit your definition of how your democracy works?
“That’s not how democracy works. Whether you like the results or not, you have to accept the outcome of the democratic process. Cultural change resulting from new laws crammed down the throats of an unwilling populace cannot succeed, and will only provoke backlash.”
Exactly.
Yes, Gabriel. And it happens because the biggest risk for democracy is the (ingenuos) idea that we must establish equal rights for everybody.
I want to marry a child. How’s that?
@ericdano
I know know democracy works, moron. And I also know that our constitution USED to protect our religious beliefs, or lack of beliefs. This amendment had no place to be put in our constitution, because it TAKES RIGHTS AWAY, and that my little ignorant friend, is not what our constitution should do.
Noodle-Armed Choir Boy, or rather strawman-armed choir boy, calm down. Now you are proposing something that would not happen.
It was up for a vote, the people said no. So, what if the 56 million people who voted for McCain decided they simply were not going to pay taxes or support Obama because they think it was morally wrong to choose him as President? Our society and government would collapse.
If you want equal rights under the law, the lobby for it. I suggest using the term “Union” or something. I think what really killed it was using the term Marriage. People just don’t want that term redefined. So, come back in the next election, have a prop that gives equal whatever under the law as a Union, and all will be fine.
There is no logical argument against gay marriage. It has absolutely no impact on heterosexual marriages. The insecure, the homophobic, the religious extremists, the ignorant, and the stupid need to quit trying to make society into their warped image of how people should live. I am ashamed of my fellow human beings. It’s unbelievable that we could elect Obama and at the same time do something so mean spirited and wrong.
As for those who don’t like Apple’s giving money to a political cause, sell your stock and don’t buy their products. The fact that you own stock or a Mac doesn’t mean you have the right to manage the company.
And no, I’m not gay.
Cavemen
Gabriel: The more people we have who simply refuse to accept the outcome of a legitimate democratic process – whatever the outcome – the closer our country approaches self-destruction.
on your view is there anything which it would be wrong to put to a popular vote, or is what the majority prefers always a legitimate democratic outcome?
This is still money well spent by Apple. Apple has many employees whose civil rights are being taken away and it is appropriate to show their support as they are an employer in CA. The opposition may have won this battle (it’s still being counted, btw) but equality in America always finds its way. It’s only a matter of time.
At least gays have the right to hang a heterosexual in effigy, and the straights can DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT.
So, you win some, you lose some.