Apple among 60 companies to back gay marriage in U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief

“On Thursday, dozens of American corporations, including Apple, Alcoa, Facebook, eBay, Intel, and Morgan Stanley will submit an amicus brief in the landmark Hollingsworth v. Perry case broadly arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that laws banning same-sex marriages, like California’s ballot initiative Proposition 8, are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses,” Roger Parloff reports for Fortune.

“At least 60 companies had committed to signing the brief as of Tuesday evening, according to Joshua Rosenkranz, who is counsel of record on the brief and head of the Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. That number is expected to rise by Thursday, however, according to Rosenkranz. Others who have already committed to sign include AIG, Becton Dickinson, Cisco, Cummins, Kimpton, Levi Strauss, McGraw Hill, NCR, Nike, Office Depot, Oracle, Panasonic, Qualcomm, and Xerox,” Parloff reports. “(Update: Verizon and Cablevision have now joined.)”

Parloff reports, “In an apparent effort to avoid giving offense to customers, vendors, and employees who may favor prohibitions against gay marriage, the brief states in a footnote that the signatory companies ‘do not mean to suggest’ that such laws are the ‘product of ill will’ on anyone’s part.”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
National Organization for Marriage to Steve Jobs: You’ve become Big Brother (with video) – December 17, 2010
Christian Group asks Apple to reinstate pulled ‘Manhattan Declaration’ iPhone app – November 30, 2010
California’s ‘No on 8’ same-sex marriage campaign models ads on Apple’s ‘Get a Mac’ commercials – November 01, 2008
Apple donates $100,000 to fight same-sex marriage ban in California (Proposition 8) – October 24, 2008


  1. Whether members of Apple or any other company privately oppose gay marriage it is necessary to issue statements of corporate support it because it demonstrates that one is tolerant of deviant behavior. What’s next? Polygamy, lawful incest, beastiality? Who decides and why?

    1. That’s your opinion and your fairy tale bible. Bible thumpers said the same about interracial marriage. Divorce is #1 problem. Tell me how equal rights for gays hurts you exactly? Many states and countries have had equal marriage rights for some time now and nothing happened.

      1. I can’t wait for GAY DIVORCE COURT. HAHAHAHAHa.. what a joke. How does it hurt individuals? It’s anything to a libtard to demean others tradition isn’t it? STOP calling it Marriage. Have your stupid civil union.. “civil” right???… but don’t call it a marriage. That is like calling Hanukah, Christmas..IT’s not the same and disrespectful. As always it is the LIBERALS who are intolerant and disrespectful of OTHERS traditions. I don’t feel like telling my kids that MAN MAN sex is the SAME. it is NOT the same. I don’t mind that it is DIFFERENT. fine. Enjoy your butt sex and the chlamydia/aids that goes with it. But NORMAL means within the NORM. Being gay is not NORMAL. sorry you lose. Live your life. But don’t ask traditional people to change the definition of their tradition. MARRIAGE, for your Deviant behavior. (to the full definition of the word) Can’t WAIT for the backlash..

        1. Literally the most ignorant vile comment I’ve ever read on this website. Take everything you just said replace the word “gay” with “mixed or interracial” and you are a repeat of the bigotsnthe churches bussed into the south during the civil rights movement.

    2. When it comes to humans so called deviant behavior is quite rampant, not in so much as what they do but in terms of what they do not do.

      Polygamy from a zoological refers to a mating pattern in which a single individual mates with more than one individual of the opposite sex. The list of animals that engage in this is quite long. For humans, who attach the concept of marriage to sex (quite unsuccessfully in most cases) there are nearly fifty countries where polygamy is legal.

      Incest within the animal world happens and you don’t have to go far to figure out that Mendel’s experiments with pea plants that furthered the advancement of modern genetics were pretty well incest based. Incest is legal in some countries including the Netherlands and Spain.

      Bestiality is a tricky one, because some definitions consider it to be sexual relations between a person and an animal. Well here’s a news flash, human beings are animals, so by that definition your mother had sex with a human being, hence your mother engaged in bestial behavior, just like mine… according to that definition.
      Now another definition might look at it as a human being having sex with an animal of a different species. That sort of works but if you consider that to simply be sexual relationships between two animals of different species and making a mule or a hinny is certainly a case of accepted bestiality between a horse and donkey.

      A much kinkier point of view regarding bestiality is a non animal having sexual relationships with an animal. That’s the sort of things flowers do when the bees and butterflies pollinate them.

      At any rate bestiality (using the sexual relations between an animal and a human definition) is permitted in a few countries, such as Sweden Denmark and legal in Germany and Russia.

      The real deviant behavior is homogeneity or sameness. Diversity is stability and sameness is a real killer for an ecosystem. You just have to look at the effects of monoculture. Fortunately the vast diversity of life is decided by life because that diversity brings stability to the planet’s ecosystem.

      I hope that answers your questions.

          1. Wow, you just admitted that it’s morally acceptable to commit infanticide and cannibalism, and someone gave you five stars?

            Kinda proves the argument that science does not lead to morality…

            1. I never said that it was that is was morally acceptable to commit infanticide and cannibalism. I am just pointing out that for humans it has existed, it exist today, and more than likely it will continue to exist.

              I never heard about an argument that science was supposed to lead to morality. Scientists tend to leave that to the leaders, and generals. Mind you there are some exceptions where scientists do try to meddle in moral affairs.


        1. People are not animals; however, we do seem to act like them – I don’t know about the cannibalism, but we already participate in infanticide. . . . it’s called Abortion

          1. People are not animals???? Yikes, hate to burst your bubble but we are, in many ways.


            There are a couple of ways that humans are not like animals, apart from the opposable thumb and other anatomical features. One is war, very few other animals are that inconsiderate. The other is garbage. Homo sapiens is not only the only animal but the only living thing on this planet that produces garbage toxic not only to itself but to every other living creature on earth.

            No other living creature is that inconsiderate.

            1. thanks for supporting my point; excellent argument for some of the many differences – don’t forget the ability to create and admire and participate in art, technology, religion and on and on. . . . . and you’re right on about the inconsiderate part, too

            2. My pleasure. I don’t include the ability to create and admire and participate in art, technology and religion because other creatures are capable of that so it’s not unique to humans.

              The garbage is though, and I’m glad you got that idea.

      1. Your answer is ridiculous and does not answer the question. We are talking about rights between 2 people. Same ridic argument bible thumpers made about interracial marriage.

        Again, how does equal rights for gays hurts YOU exactly?

        1. Equal rights for gays doesn’t hurt me. I don’t have a problem with equal rights for gays or bisexuals and I am quite pleased that my country supports and legally allows same sex marriages.

    3. A person ought to be able to marry anyone they want. You can keep your nose out of it. When it comes to liberty, you only want the kind that suits you.

      In fact, your comment has outraged me so much that I am going to find a sister of several wives who has a pony. I’m going to marry them all.

      1. I love your comments tbone!

        I agree these christo-fascists are the the loudest about being “freedom loving patriots” but want to act like the damn Taliban when it comes to governance. The only freedom they love is the ability to dictate their fairy-tale reality. Meanwhile their priests prey on their children. Talk about deviant behavior.

        Keep, keeping it real…good shit..

        1. How so? I don’t know exactly what gay men do during sexual relations but inserting a phallus into a mouth or anus can be done with a man or a woman. In fact a picture a phallus is an anatomical structure that is unique to males but a mouth an anus have a similar structure in both sexes.

          I really don’t see your point.

      1. Apparently you think that inequality before the law is OK. If you’re a citizen of the USA, you’re not a very good one.

        I’ve never seen a single, rational argument for opposing gay marriage. No, religion is not a rational basis for the law, nor is prejudice or your own preference a basis for denying people equality before the law based on how they were born.

        1. No Ron, you’ve never accepted a single rational argument opposing gay marriage, probably because you had already made up your mind before you started listening. There are a lot of non religious reasons for opposing marriage arrangements other than the one man one woman arrangement we have now. perhaps you should look into them. If you think sexual orientation is as genetically predetermined and innate as skin colour, you’re operating on false info, which makes the foundation of your idea of equality weak.

          1. Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove that someone doesn’t deserve equality before the law. It’s upon your to prove that gay people are not born that way.

            You’re obviously ignorant of the struggles of gay people who know they never chose to be gay, who fought it in every way possible, and yet finally come to accept that it is part of who they are, then go on to be at peace and happy with their lives, despite the profound ignorance and viciousness of people like yourself. Stay out of other people’s lives. You are unqualified to comment on them. You have no right to make decisions about their lives. They are not telling you how to live and who to love. What makes you think you have that right? And this gets to something that’s puzzled me my entire life, even as a little boy I remember wondering about it. Why do people think they get to decide how others should live? Mind your own life.

            1. I have heard the same sob story before Ron, in print and personally. Is this where you try a little victim mentality and an attempt at public shaming to completely run away from the FACTS? The FACT is that skin colour and race cannot be treated as the same thing, so your argument for civil rights is BS. So your continual arguing that it is , is you perpetuating an untruth. If I have ‘no right to make decisions’ on your life, the gay community in turn has no right to continually demand we recognize same sex pairings as marriages. You can love whoever you want Ron, what you dont have a right is demand that the majority legitimate it.

            2. Argument by assertion. Stating something is a fact doesn’t make it so. We don’t argue that YOU personally have to recognize gay marriages. No one gives a damn what you want to recognize. The argument is what the government does. The majority doesn’t have to recognize it, it’s not in their purview anyway. Rights are inherent, not crowd-sourced. Obviously, you don’t understand that. The only question is whether you don’t understand because you don’t want to, or are mentally incapable of doing so.

            1. You are incorrect on all accounts. But you can believe what you want.just don’t ignore the fact that you are wrong especially with regards to what you think the majority thinks, feels or believes. You are obviously in the minority on this one. No matter what your closed loop information trap tells you. Read the actual polls.

        2. One rational argument that I’ve found supports heterosexual relationships (marriages) is to sustain the species. Gay marriages do no help increase the population. Gay relationships from what I understand increase when there are high population densities. At that point gay relationships would be an advantage as a way of bringing the population levels back down.

          1. That’s not a rational argument. It treats people as existing simply to breed. There is more purpose to life than breeding. And if it’s to sustain the species, then people who are infertile, past menopause or otherwise unable to have children wouldn’t be allowed to marry either. Procreation is not the purpose of marriage. One can procreate without marriage. One can be married without procreation. It’s a classic straw man argument.

            1. I did not say that the only purpose of marriage is for procreation. I said “One rational argument that I’ve found supports heterosexual relationships (marriages) is to sustain the species.” I meant support as an added feature or ingredient that supports the relationship on a population level. I have no problem with what you said about the other aspects of marriage and life.


            2. Hi Road Warrior, I’m not attacking you. I’m pointing out that what you are proposing as a “rational argument” is not actually a rational argument, but rather is a straw man argument. It’s not germane to the question of whether gay people have a right to equality before the law.

            3. Thanks ron. I think I am getting misinterpreted around here by both sides…LOL.

              I still think there may be a relevancy to it based on what I said earlier but it’s based on theoretical aspects.

              Some animals show different behavioral characteristics based on population densities. I suspect humans are the same. Prior to the industrial revolution our population density was low. I suspect, but cannot prove that the percentages of homosexuals was low, lower than it is today. The rationalizing argument for opposing gay marriages at that point would simply be lack of demand. Social stigma of course would play a major role in the rationality of the day, after all a few hundred years ago people getting married at the ages of 15 was not unusual and that could be rationalized for those times because of the short life span. Today’s rationale is a lot different, but then again, we live longer.

              After the industrial revolution and to this day our population has been exploding and to me that is one of the biggest issues that humankind faces. While I suspect that homosexuality (and bisexuality) is on the rise percentage wise I could be wrong. That may not matter as the sheer number of people now dictates an economy of scale so to speak to warrant the development of gay marriages.

              So to your main point “I’ve never seen a single, rational argument for opposing gay marriage.” I’d still stick with what I said but with this background I’d add there was no argument for gay marriage way back when for a variety of reasons (social norms, population densities etc.). Now however there is a population level, social sophistication to promote gay marriage. That is however a change, and any change is usually met with resistance. Yes some of that is irrational, and there are those that fear change. There are some rational arguments for change, one is that we are not aware of the repercussions when we introduce something new. History is loaded with examples of that.

              You can take this one step further. You could say that there is no rational argument for sum sex marriages (two male bisexuals and two female bisexuals) but there isn’t a demand for it…yet.

              I suspect that there will be, and this whole issue will be revisited again.

              Anyway, I don’t know if I am making sense, but you got me thinking and that is always the joy of exchanging ideas. Thanks for the kind word, it really made my day.

            4. While I get we are on the same side of this argument, my retort to the “sustain the species” argument is that not all hetero marriage couples procreate. Also not all people who have kids are married at all.

              Add to it the fact that same sex couples can use modern fertilization methods and still have children, as well as adopting unwanted children, so that argument doesn’t hold water.

              Marriage has nothing to do with species survival. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with ones ability to parent either.

            5. A thing which is supposed to be of a certain class, but by its very nature (not by occasional circumstance, but by its nature) excludes any of the required attributes of that class, cannot be of that class.

              One of the required attributes of marriage is the possibility of procreation. While there may be an occasional circumstance where a male and a female cannot have children, that does not violate the nature of the relationship. However, a homosexual pairing by its very nature excludes the possibility of procreation, and therefore cannot by the natural law be a marriage.

              The entire pro-gay-“marriage” argument, when you clear out all of the irrelevancies and misstatements of so-called “equal rights” which are actually SPECIAL rights (gays have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like anyone else), is based upon a simple emotional – and not very mature or well-thought-out – argument.

          2. Maybe you should have a look at the animal kingdom where over 1500 species (and growing) show homosexual behavior as quite normal. Some species (dolphins in particular) will even pair bond with the same sex but will mate with females to procreate. Thinking that that being gay will destroy the population is a weak argument. You think that we just get to wave a magic wand and convert everyone?
            And yes, we are born this way and not converted by a sexual predator. I would like to know when you chose to be straight (we know you didn’t) Besides, how in the world are you harmed by gay marriage? Either your marriage is strong or it isn’t, don’t blame us.

            1. I certainly don’t think that being gay will destroy the population. What I’m saying is that it has been observed that there is a rise in population densities in homosexuality in populations. More than likely it is a reactive process, not a proactive one and it may be a mechanism that helps lower the population level, but not to the point of destroying it.

              To the point of the magic wand, yes indeed I think there are more than several mechanisms at work that trigger this response. There is a magic wand for example that makes human women in a closed living condition (like a convent) develop a synchronous cyclical pattern. Pheromones, social inputs they all have an affect on individuals of a population. There is a magic wand for lobsters, who in the juvenile stages can change sex. I have no doubt that this helps stabilize the population over the long run.

              There certainly are many animals that show, well I prefer to call it bisexual behavior but I know what you mean. I most definitely have looked at a lot of that, and even plants, which like some animals are hermaphroditic and self fertilizing. Some plants will respond differently depending on the carbon to nitrogen ratios, that is there magic wand. It may not convert everyone, but it does convert some.

              I certainly see a lot of differences between people when I travel from an urban to a rural area. The magic wand of the media certainly promotes an association with sex and violence, one of the reasons I stay away from a lot of TV.

              If you know I didn’t choose to be straight then asking me that you would like to know when I chose to be straight is can be viewed as… well I’ll let you fill in that blank, since you already seem to have made up your own mind about that.

              I’ve said it before here and I’ll say it again. I am not harmed by gay marriage and I am glad to come from a country where it is legal. I see benefits to both straight and gay marriages and I hope in the future bisexual marriages will be considered.

              Oh one more thing, thanks for bringing in dolphins into your post. I hope one day that the human species will become as intelligent and humane and sexually open as they are.

            2. penelopepickles, that little piece of “research” was disclaimed by its originator well over a decade ago as having no relationship to what humans describe as “homosexual behavior.” Do your research.

              And it doesn’t really matter to me if you’re born that way. So are paranoids, schizophrenics, and people who are born missing various parts of their bodies. Abnormalities do not automatically confer special rights, nor do they give anyone the right to change the definition of marriage.

  2. There really should be a way to give zero stars, or even minus stars. Otherwise, how to indicate that a post is in utterly poor taste? Give it one start to counteract those that have given it 4, but -5 would be so much more effective and appropriate. Please make it so MDN.

  3. Apple as a public corporation owned by shareholders has no business endorsing or conveying any political views on any issue period. If individual employees at Apple want to convey their views do it outside company business.

    1. A person’s right to marry is not a political issue. It is a civil issue. It is a Human Issue. My personal relationship with someone else if none of the government’s business. However if the government chooses to offer benefits and privileges to a segment of the population it must offer equal access.

      1. Gays are already afforded Civil Unions which address most of your argument. Exactly what gov. benefits are you referring to that I or others may not be informed of. The right to divorce and pay alimony, the right to pay more taxes as a married couple or the right to lawful child custody? Do you really think this is an issue that should be taken up by a company that has 100’s of thousands of employees with diverse views and opinions. Should Apple fire everyone that doesn’t agree with it’s political stance on this issue?

        1. Actually no civil unions are not legal everywhere, they only legal in 5 states. Furthermore, our country has already explored the “separate but equal” path and found it to not work.

          There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. Because the Defense of Marriage Act defines “marriage” as only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-sex couples – even if legally married in their state – will not be considered spouses for purposes of federal law.

    2. Ever hear of citizens united? Where have you been? Corporations are people too and as such enjoy more influence in our government than you or I…

      How do you feel about Churches then? Should they be muzzled as well?

      1. I don’t give 2 sh*ts about a person’s dogma. I also don’t think that just because someone “believes” something that my life should be regulated by it. You keep you your religious practices out of my bedroom and Ill keep my bedroom practices out of your churches.

  4. Sad beyond words Apple is now involved in social engineering! No society in history has ever endorsed, allowed or promoted same-sex marriage! Now it’s all of a sudden okay? Tim Cook needs to resign and take his sick politics with him! This is the downfall of Apple under his reign in my eyes! Companies and celebrities me to STFU! Disgusting what this country has become!

    1. You should look up “group marriages” that have indeed happened throughout history (Sandwich Islands, Melanesia, India) and even communal societies in the US (of all places) in the 19th and 20th centuries.

      I’ll grant you that it isn’t a same sex marriage, more a sum sex marriage (bisexual marriages) and that will coming up next in a few years. After all the straights got it, the gays are getting it, just wait the bisexuals will be lining up.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.