OSNews

Although I agree completely, I think you're wishing for something that won't happen. There are certain religions, and I think we all know which ones, that seem to believe it's their duty to force others to see things their way and to conform to their beliefs. As long as these religions are allowed to lobby for their own views--and they should be, no matter what anyone personally thinks of them--we will never have a conconsensuscensus on this issue and efforts to regulate or ban same sex marriages will persist.
I absolutely believe that we should, under no circumstances, prohibit any two people from marrying no matter what their sexual orientations. For that matter, I say if more than two people want to marry and are consenting to it we have no right to judge them or stop them. It's their life, not ours. I wish these crazy fundamentalist wackjobs would realize that and sink back into the woodworks where they belong and stop wasting our time and monetary effort to enforce their own twisted beliefs on the rest of us.
Bias warning: I'm very anti-religion, at least in the sense of organized religions.
On to the article, though... I'm very happy on a personal level that Apple and Google are speaking out against this. I do have to wonder, though, if a corporation has the right to expend monetary resources on political proceedings. Individuals certainly, large corporations... well, I don't think so. This is dangerous in its own way. I agree with others here who say this sets a dangerous precedent. This time it's gay marriage, next time it's... well, anything.

"Individuals certainly, large corporations... well, I don't think so. This is dangerous in its own way. I agree with others here who say this sets a dangerous precedent. This time it's gay marriage, next time it's... well, anything."

Well, at least here in the US it has been going on like that ..with corporations funding things..for at least 100 years maybe more. Part of politics unfortunately. Anymore it is about how much money a candidate can raise on whether they get elected or not..sad state of affairs.

The problem is there is no neutral position in this matter. Marriage is either something that is intrinsically a male and female partnership or it is not. One side will force its will onto the other. If same sex marriages are recognised then that side will have forced its definition of marriage onto the society as a whole if same sex marriages are not legal then that side will have its definition of marriage prevail on society.

>I wish these crazy fundamentalist wackjobs would realize that and sink back into the woodworks where they belong and stop wasting our time and monetary effort to enforce their own twisted beliefs on the rest of us. <

Or perhaps you are the one pushing your own twisted beliefs on the rest of us? ...

It's all a matter of perspective. You expect the religious to be tolerant of your views and to just stand back and keep their mouths shut, but you do not tolerate their views and voice yours.

I would venture to say these "fundamentalist wackjobs" are generally much more tolerant of the likes of you then you are of them.

I mostly agree on that. The various cultural interpretations of marriage have varied very much in history, in differing cultures and even in current societies that usually support cultural variety and freedom. Anyway, the subject is a very sensitive to almost everyone - even if they couldn't care less for marriage personally - as it deals with the most intimate human feelings. That explains why the same sex marriage is so hotly debated subject. Also, as marriage is usually governed by state laws too, it makes it more difficult to see it only as a cultural habit that various cultural groups could handle as they please and according to their own cultural values only.

Can commercial companies take part in political discussion on this kind of subjects? A difficult question. If there's democracy and freedom of speech, who's to stop them, and why should they even be prevented from doing that? Maybe it may at least be better if they do it openly than if they were secretly lobbying and giving money for some political goals and parties behind the scenes? There are other concerns too, however. As the primary goal of companies is their business, one may start to wonder how sincere such political side goals are and whether the companies may also be campaigning for such political goals in order to advertise themselves as more ethical companies and to turn people's attention away from some other maybe non-ethical practices of those companies (not talking about Apple or Google here, just on an abstract and general level)?

From those who want to ban some or another political party/opinion in this or that debate I'd like to ask: Wouldn't it be better to let every party take part in the free and democratic discussion and decision making instead of conservative, liberal or other kinds of censorship schemes (even as jokes) that restrict and not increase freedom and democracy?

It is indeed tempting to think that one's own opinions would always be the best, and that the other irritating people with differing opinions are always wrong and should be banned and silenced... But isn't that kind of arrogant attitude the very seed of dangerous totalitarianism and witch hunts? Others with differing opinions, though maybe wrong in some question, may sometimes have good points to bring to the discussion too that oneself may not have thought about. Democracy and freedom of speech forces even opposing parties to openly discuss and listen to each other which is usually only good for political decision making.

Better would have been for the civil branch to create something akin to marriage legally and taxation wise, but simply not call it marriage, which you indirectly acknowledge as religious as well as civil. Civil Unions are the best course for that action.

However, that people were not content with Civil Unions points out that the goal is not civil recognition but religious recognition.

The problem with Civil Unions is that to make it fair everyone that is "Married" under the law would no longer be so, and that would upset a great number of people as well. Calling a legal institution one thing for one group and one thing for a another is not right. IMHO its all or nothing we are all "Married" Legally or we are all "Civilly Joined"