Apple lauds U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage

“In a pair of 5-4 decisions, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of same-sex couples in two major cases, effectively allowing federal benefits for gay couples and clearing the way for same-sex marriages in the state of California,” Mike Isaac reports for AllThingsD.

“One ruling overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, the bill passed in 1996 that ruled same-sex marriages unconstitutional,” Isaac reports. “The other decision left intact a lower-court ruling that invalidated California’s Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage.”

Isaac reports, “‘Apple strongly supports marriage equality and we consider it a civil rights issue. We applaud the Supreme Court for its decisions today,’ an Apple spokesman told AllThingsD in a statement… Apple, in particular, has traditionally stood against inequality, having long offered health benefits to same-sex couples employed by Apple, and publicly donating to the ‘No on Prop 8’ campaign in 2008.”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Apple among 60 companies to back gay marriage in U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief – February 27, 2013
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. @ AID: Tolerance is the mark of an enlightened mind. If you agree that:
          1) all humans should be afforded the same freedoms and treatement by their government, and
          2) it is a semantic argument whether the word “marriage” or “civil union” is used to refer to the government-determined rights and benefits,

          then your only resulting step toward a calm mature life is to accept that others may choose to live differently than you. And that’s okay, because it doesn’t harm you in the slightest.

          This message is brought to you by a straight guy who should know better than to advise extreme social conservatives to “turn the other cheek”. They might take it literally, as they seem to everything else.

            1. Hercules cast the rope into a stream, whence it froze. At that, he was able to push the rope (as now became a staff) at the serpent, and fling it away.

            2. handsomesmitty,
              If your profile pic is true, I would love to hook up with you!

              Wait, that rhymes! I’m a poet and I didn’t even know it! 🙂

      1. North American Man/Boy Love Association here.

        Where do we sign up?

        The age of consent puts pedophiles in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the state has sought to dignify.

    1. Deviants doesn’t mean what you think it means. But, congratulations on sticking to the wrong side of morality, logic, and history. Views like yours are fortunately dying out as the worthless bits of historic flotsam that they are.

      1. “The age of consent puts pedophiles in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the state has sought to dignify.”

        We want ours NOW!

          1. Agreed. Minors lack the emotional and psychological maturity to enter into “adult relationships” or marriage contracts. Any relationship between an adult and a child is inherently unbalanced, predatory, and exploitative in nature. Pedophiles do not love children, they use them.

            Two adults should be allowed to do whatever they bloody well please, with whoever they bloody well please. But children should always be protected from the predations of pedophiles.

            1. Actually, your statement depends on how define ‘pedophile.’ If, like the various psychiatric organizations have done with homosexuality, you redefine pedophilia is based on chemical/physical behavior and is the natural expression of genetics and not a mental disorder or controllable behavior (since such behavior is a ‘natural’ genetic expression), then homosexuals then yes, heterosexuals outnumber pedophiles. Saying it’s not pedophilia because it’s same sexes hooking up is, well, cheating. But, since the adults have left the building, you silly little children can call butter popcorn if you so choose.

          2. The argument is based on the idea that certain behaviors can be proscribed based on the concept of consent. This was problematic for gays many years ago when the orientation was categorized as a mental illness and the person could not legally consent.

            NAMBLA is suggesting that the slow march from mental illness to legally recognized sexual orientation might be replicated by pedophiles.

            I think this is unlikely because one half of such a couple will always be considered too young to consent. The same goes for zoophiles. We simply have no way of determining the consent of the animal. Ramda the love goat will likely always be considered a victim.

            Gay marriage was a foregone conclusion once it was homosexuality was removed as a pathology from the DSM.

        1. I’d say you deserve the same, but then I’d be implying that you should have hateful, bigoted brainless gay parents and that would be an insult to the gays and lesbians I know.

            1. Your actions as a moron, stemming from intolerance, and your convenience of being able to talk about something you have no clue on, shouldn’t be considered funny. Your comment is moronic and hateful.

            2. I was just trying to reach out to you, but you have chosen the path of a bully. Remember, Correctu, we are the world, we are the children. We are the ones who make a brighter day so let’s start giving. There’s a choice we’re making, we’re saving our own lives. It’s true we’ll make a better day just you and me…just you and me, Correctu…just you and me.

            3. What he meant, correctu—and botvinnik can correct me if I’m wrong—is that, if they had been homosexual, they would not have become Ellen’s, or anyone else’s, parents. Ellen would not then exist to bother or disgust us. Get it?

              I love taking the fun out of a joke by explaining it, even if I’m wrong, and even if the joke isn’t funny.

            4. Botvinnik is a lost cause. He just loves the attention his comments engender. His level of sophistication approximates that of a two-year old child, albeit with a slightly broader vocabulary. Your best bet is to simply ignore him.

            5. @KingMel

              botvinnik is a merry minstrel of mirth compared to certain others hereabouts, and his truncheon of bemusement is that of a laughing demigod. I think Oscar Wilde said that.

    2. You do know that roughly 90% of convicted pedophiles identify themselves as heterosexual, don’t you? Oh, wait … my bad. That would mean you’d have to understand what you are reading instead of guessing that what you are looking at says what YOU think it says.

        1. Try at least 10% being gay, not to mention the vast percentage that are actively bisexual. Sexuality is not black and white, but every shade from completely heterosexual to completely homosexual.

      1. Raping animals? Well assuming that you are correct, that sex with animals is rape, then I am a MURDERER because I had bacon this morning.

        Personally while I think sex with animals is gross, I think it’s silly to classify it as rape.

    3. Dear Clowns,

      Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for ten years. Polygamy and bestiality are still illegal and have zero societal support.

      But thanks for being our clowns and making us laugh.

      The Sane

        1. Do you really want me to explain? I can, It’s very obvious and very easy to explain – but I get the feeling you already know and you are just trying to be jerk. Let me know if you actually want to understand.

    4. most pedophiles are straight, not gay, you should know that…
      and what are you doing here anyway? You most surely belong to those who say Macs are for gays, fags, girls, blacks, etc.
      Get the hell out of here and go back to your middle age ku klux klan and rejoice in your “straightness”. Why is the world full of this shit-for-brains-people?

    5. We are talking about recognising consenting adults in loving relationships, not willful exploitation by predators of defenceless children who cannot provide consent.
      Don’t try and confuse these two very different things because they have absolutely nothing in common.

        1. No, certitude is their default setting. We both understand that reason itself involves no specific context-based “settings” beyond the required support for instinctual herd and self-preservation instincts.

  1. So much for intelligent management:

    Some people have said that I shouldn’t get involved politically because probably half our customers are Republicans… 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.Apple CEO Steve Jobs, August 2004

    Here’s an idea: Worry about running the company, Aunt Timmy, before you’re out on your ass.

    There’s no pride, gay or otherwise, in halving the price of AAPL in under a year.

    1. “There’s no pride, gay or otherwise, in halving the price of AAPL in under a year.”

      Ain’t that the GD truth!

      How long will Auntie Tim last at this rate?

  2. Fire that Apple spokesman. Taking sides in controversial social issues has NOTHING to do with Apple. It merely inflames the passions of selective portions of their potential customers. This is a Microsoft type of gaff.

    1. What business is it of government in the first place to go around deciding just what constitutes the HOLY state of matrimony? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

      1. There is no such thing as ‘separation of church and state’. Read the constitution or any of our founding documents, not in there. Please don’t tell me it’s implied either, the only implied separation was and is supposed to be to keep the government out of the church, not the other way around. Most Americans today are completely clueless as to the history of America.

        What business is it of the gubermints to change the definition of a 4000 yr old institution either?

        1. That 4,000 year old definition, as you put it, was at one time or another polygamous, included men marrying their slaves, their rape victims, and the wives of men they’d killed. The wife was the property of the man, and there was no divorce, ever. It was for life, even if that meant both (or all) parties within the marriage were so miserable they’d commit suicide to get out of it.

          ALL of the above has changed in marriage during these 4,000 years you are thinking of.

          Same-sex marriage, in comparison, is a small change. As for the so called redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples, it’s already happened. It happened back in 2001 in the Netherlands. Everything since then has just been other places playing catch up.

      2. Holy Matrimony and Marriage are two separate concepts. One belongs to religion, the other to society as a whole.

        And society, whether you like it or not, includes same-sex couples.

        The push towards equality continues.

  3. Big deal. The government shouldn’t have been in the marriage business anyway!

    It’s only because the government put their nose into marriage and associated tax benefits that this whole issue arose in the first place.

    Flat tax for all and keep out of our personal lives.

    1. There’s a bit more than taxes involved, like who gets to visit you in the hospital, who gets your stuff when you die, etc. Right now a blood family member can stop an unmarried gay partner from even seeing their incapacitated loved one. It’s issues like these that swing the big stick for me on marriage equality.

      But I agree, taxes and benefits should fall equally on all, with no special deals for marriage status. Those laws need to get fixed under any circumstance.

  4. Apple lauds? Apple lauds?!! Apple lauds?!!!! R u telling me EVERYONE at Apple supports same-sex marriage? No! They don’t! Probably at least 50%! But what does Apple do? It speaks with a single, united voice discounting half it’s employees and shareholders who believe this is one the most despicable acts of moral decline in history! Our taxes now subsidize abortion, sodomy and soon 11,000,000 illegal immigrants! Goodby America! Goodbye Apple! Your respective leaders don’t care who they offend as long as their self-serving agendas r realized! Bring on polygamy! Bring on legalizing prostitution and drugs! It’s over folks, and Tim Cook is rejoicing! You’ll soon know why if u don’t know already! Another dark day in America and at Apple!

    1. Remember the good ole days when our taxes only subsidized murdering innocents in the third world and stealing land from native Americans? Boy. Times are sure a changing.

      1. you’re living on “stolen native American land.” guess, it doesn’t offend you that much, huh?

        hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|
        noun ( pl. hypocrisies )
        the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.

        1. Nothing stolen about it. English and then American blood was shed to possess it. There is a difference, even if you don’t agree with the action.
          I personally can’t condone what it took to found the country. I wouldn’t change a thing.

            1. Nothing revised, just simple perspective. Nobody “owns” land, you idiot. It’s only through blood, courage and war that you stand upon it as an American, if you can even call yourself one.

            2. @ ckh: then do please let us know your address. Our gang would like to reposess your property. …because we can, and we’re not afraid to use violence to get it.

              Native Americans had a very fluid understanding of land ownership, but for better or worse, old British land law is what the USA adopted. Add to that the greed to dominate all natural resources, and it was clear that the two world views would mix like oil and water.

              Funny thing is, if it wasn’t for disease and the naive belief that European settlers were all primarily peaceful, Native Americans probably would have held onto their continent for many decades longer. There were simply too few Crazy Horses on the eastern seaboard.

            3. I also like how you don’t say “tribe”, but gang, as in “Occupy”.
              You are about as Native American as I am.
              My point is that there isn’t a place on Earth that wasn’t inhabited and then railroaded by other groups. It’s life, get over it. Native American understanding of the ways of the world were very narrow and geographically based.
              It’s only through a civil society, a strong military and diligence that this can be avoided. All things that the Socialist left doesn’t believe in. So it’s ironic that you cry foul for Native Americans, but you promote an environment that invites the downfall of America.

          1. Though, as an Englishman, I’d love to take all the credit, I am forced to admit other Europeans were involved as well.

            Strange though that the posts that attract most comment today have very little to do with tech, and very much to do with “conservatives” vs. “liberal”.

            First off, as a straight man, who actually does share doubts over whether same-sex marriages can ever be “valid” religiously or culturally, I will defend with my life the right of homosexuals to campaign for, and win, legal equality and all the rights that come with marriage. I hope that my own state will eventually follow those pioneering states in the US that have legalised gay marriage.

            Secondly (and off topic I know), correct me if I’m wrong but it seems from my distant point of view, that the loudest voices calling this chap Snowden a traitor are the same ones that call for an end to big government. And I find that strange.

            Now, developers, how is that iOS 7 coming along? I can’t wait.

    2. iMaki, if only you worked in an environment surrounded by highly intelligent people, you’d understand that WAY more than 50% of Apple employees support the end of this injustice.

      But I guess there’s no chance of that, huh?

    1. How do you figure that?

      The fifth and deciding vote in this case was cast by Justice Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican of some distinction, in 1988.

        1. You really are a card carrying Socialist statist aren’t you. Anyone who would hate Ronald Reagan, can only be anti-American, Anti-Constitution, anti-democracy, anti-republic.
          For better or worse, at least he believed in this country and did what he could to make it better. What can you say about any of your self-indulgent Presidents?
          For the record, I don’t hate the left the way the left hates the right. I just won’t tolerate the nonsense that you spew.
          Perhaps if you owned anything, and stood for something, you would have a reasonable perspective.

        1. He is part of the Photoplay triumvirate of Ronald Reagan, George Murphy, and Shirley Temple Black, to be outdone only by Austrian bodybuilder Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    2. Don’t forget the Party of Dumb.

      And to First 2010, Then 2012 (CHOKE!), Ronald Reagan supported so many stances you’d now consider “extremely liberal” that you no longer get to invoke his name or actions as “Republican” without qualifying it by saying you wouldn’t even consider voting for him if he were alive and running for office today.

            1. This was a reply to F10T12’s little hissy fit reply to Whistle, as any reasonably intelligent person can see. You obviously need glasses and a serious attitude adjustment.

            2. Both of you calm down…when anyone works the word “obviously” into his sentences, it’s a sign that the issue is far from obvious, and deeply coloured by proud bias.

  5. Apple’s on the right side of morality and history, but there is a corporate motivation to making public statements like this. Apple would be losing a lot of potentially brilliant employees if they alienated gay people. Nearly 4% of Americans are gay and over 50% support equal rights for married couples. Given how common and institutional homophobia still is in America, it’s necessary for corporations to publicly support equality if they want gay people feel safe working for them.

    Any major company that doesn’t publicly affirm equal rights is at a significant disadvantage attracting talented employees.

    1. Apple is in the business of making computing hardware & software, which has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation whatsoever. There is no need for the company to cowtow to a 4% minority, it’s just Tim’s personal mission. Like all CEOs, he is wasting company resources for his personal purposes. Tim should be supporting and recruiting the 4% smartest computer science graduates, not the glee club twits who demand special attention.

      Please define “right side of morality and history”. That quaint notion seems to bend to the point of view of whoever is talking – as always, the winner writes the history books.

      The Supreme Court offered a very good ruling, I agree. However, it is long past time that the extreme vocal minority lose the media megaphone. Most open-minded people fight for equal rights, NOT for special attention to extreme minorities. Refusing to endorse or condone a lifestyle that, at its core, is not sustainable nor historically popular, is not homophobia, The attitude of most is simply to correctly identify the reality that gay/les activists have taken their cause WAY too far into popular culture. Keep your private functions in the bedroom, please.

      1. Mike,

        For many years I had thought the same way. I had nothing against homosexuality itself, but I always felt that there is disproportionately high exposure to the cause, when compared to the actual share in the population.

        Then I realised that one thing had nothing to do with the other. Because you (and I) had this perception that the gay movement had disproportionately high exposure, I had believed that they were demanding more than their fair share. But upon closer examination, it is very clear that never did the gay movement demand some “affirmative-action” of their own (forcing proportionate representation of gays in school admission, government jobs or whatever else). All they asked for was equality in civil rights. To be able to do what others can, and not to be discriminated based on non-relevant qualities. So, as annoying as it can sometimes be when a rather small percentage of population has such loud voice, you will see how that voice will quickly fade once there is no reason to yell.

          1. Talk about spot on!

            The vocal minority has the majority of the media (liberal) megaphone and they will use it.

            Next up, why can’t a gay couple be married in the Catholic Church and on and on …

    1. Well, most people working at Apple are passionate. They are passionate about their work, but they are apparently also passionate about their beliefs.

      As gcaptain5 said, in addition to being morally correct and on the side of history, it is clearly good for business, since majority of American population seems to be on the same side regarding the marriage equality issue.

  6. What fascinates me as a foreigner of some life experience is how the reactions to the events of today very closely parallel those of Brown v. Board of Education, or Loving vs. Virginia. In both cases, conservative part of the population was up in arms against what they thought was an attack on their values, way of life and the America that they knew. Curiously enough, at the time, the Republicans were the liberal ones, and Democrats conservatives…

    Ten years from now, vast majority of Americans will likely think nothing of the marriage equality issue, and marriage will be legal for all people in all American states.

    And I am pretty certain that there will be no increase in divorce rates, no increase in the percentage of the population who are homosexual, or any other “alarming” change in the society as a consequence of this.

    Someone wrote it this way the other day:

    The guy in front of me has ordered roast beef sandwich with strawberries. How is his awkward choice going to affect the quality and my enjoyment of my own ham and cheese sandwich?

  7. Or, in simple words:

    How is my own (heterosexual) marriage going to be affected, now that my colleague can marry his long-time partner?

    The most vocal of the “marriage protection’ people tend to live in the societies where many don’t even know anyone who is gay (or aren’t aware of any gay people). So, in their cases, there is high likelihood that in their lives, they may never even encounter a married gay couple. So, how could their own marriages possibly be affected by the fact that someone, somewhere else, can now marry their partner?

  8. If you want the best and the brightest in tech you had better have the same opinion Apple has for years (this ain’t nothing new). Being apolitical in this area would tie on hand behind your back. Coming out against gay rights would bury you.
    While the general public may be divided the tech community is not. Being anti-gay there is about the same as being a Klan member. There are just way to many very well respected gay people in the industry. And if the conservatives don’t like it? tough it’s their fault. In the early days of the computer industry greedy corporate types hired all the homosexuals they could thinking they could work them longer if they didn’t have families to go home to. Now those people are the respected creators of the industry and can no longer be vilified or ignored.

  9. I’ve nothing against Gay Marriage etc. but I wish apple would ALSO concentrate doing OTHER PR stuff like.. PROTECTING ITS BUSINESS

    Do some PR against the nonsense articles bashing apple in the WSJ, NYT, Forbes etc., i.e POINT OUT THE TRUTH THAT APPLE IS NOT DYING.

    Apple stock is sinking under 400, the P.E is like HALF the S&P average (i.e that shows the PERCEPTION of apple is BAD, that it is sinking ship). Perhaps apple PR can ALSO besides gay marriage try to do it’s PRIMARY function, i.e protect the SALES and CONSUMER IMAGE of APPLE?

    the press thinks that apple is s a sinking ship full of holes, that’s its sales are tanking, for example today WSJ journal is running b.s articles about google’s enterprise value being higher (which it is) but bending it so that sounds like “it’s another evidence that apple is dying”. perhaps besides Gay Marriage apple P.R can be woken from their naps and do something about the b.s being spewed about apple failing all over?

    PR dept. should run press releases to counter the major b.s articles coming out.

    by the way perhaps apple can also spend a little bit of time running ads to sell their:
    — iMacs, (new imacs since last fall but not one single mac ad), what the heck happened to selling macs (when iPhone sales are down due to people waiting for the 5S refresh? ) Apple used to Run DOZENS of mac ads (like Mac Pc guy) but against a turd like win 8… zero ads. (Windows Still makes billions and mac still has 5% world market share vs 20% iPhone). So Apple PR and Advertising DO SOMETHING besides talking gay marriage…
    — to sell OS X
    — to sell iPods
    — sell mac mins ( i have NEVER seen a mac mini ad anywhere not even cheap press ads)

    So some sales apple and get your stock P.E up… Before the big azz hole shareholders like Einhorn (who together own 70% of apple stock) gang up to vote to replace Cook, ive etc (like they REPLACED JOBS) with a ballmer clone…


Reader Feedback

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