Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 8th Jul 2012 17:54 UTC
Google Fantastic initiative by Google. Anna Peirano details: "Google is launching a new campaign called 'Legalize Love' with the intention of inspiring countries to legalize marriage for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people around the world. The 'Legalize Love' campaign officially launches in Poland and Singapore on Saturday, July 7th. Google intends to eventually expand the initiative to every country where the company has an office, and will focus on places with homophobic cultures, where anti-gay laws exist." As proud as I am of living in the first country to legalise same-sex marriage, it's easy to forget we only did so in 2000. Also, it's about time the large technology companies of the world started using their power, reach, and money to do good. Hopefully, this initiative will transcend company boundaries, uniting them behind a common, noble goal.
Thread beginning with comment 525832
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
A few thoughts
by darknexus on Sun 8th Jul 2012 18:47 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

First, I don't believe this is something Google should be getting involved with. They're a technology company, not an advocacy group.
More importantly, I have another idea on how to deal with this mess. We don't need to legalize gay marriage, nor any other type of marriage. What we need to do is to separate the concept of Marriage and that of civil partnerships. Marriage, by definition, is a religious observance and therefore should be controlled entirely by your religion, if you have one. That means that the concept of "gay marriage" as it is commonly referred to would be dependent on which religion you are a part of. A marriage, however, would not gain you the same type of benefits as a civil partnership. I would define this concept as what marriage can give you now: right to visit at any time in hospitals, joint bank accounts, etc. These two would be by no means exclusive, but nor would they be connected. A civil partnership could be between two (or more, if that's what you want) people be they men, women, or a combination. Marriage would then be entirely outside the domain of your government and only observed within your church or religion. I think that would neatly solve this problem once and for all, assuming we can get the religious conservatives who think that faith should control everything out of our way.

Reply Score: 25

RE: A few thoughts
by dylansmrjones on Sun 8th Jul 2012 19:09 in reply to "A few thoughts"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Agree. Sums up my opinions pretty well.

Imagine 4 men entering a group civil partnership with 7 women, with all 4 men and 7 women 'marrying' each other. Men with men and women, and women with men and women. That's going to one heck of a partnership :p

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: A few thoughts
by henderson101 on Mon 9th Jul 2012 10:56 in reply to "RE: A few thoughts"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Did you ever watch Caprica?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: A few thoughts
by Luke McCarthy on Sun 8th Jul 2012 19:09 in reply to "A few thoughts"
Luke McCarthy Member since:
2005-07-06

Excellent idea. This whole issue is really a bunch of nonsense and this would put an end to it.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: A few thoughts
by No it isnt on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:07 in reply to "A few thoughts"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Personally, I think it's pretty cool that Google is a company with values, that dares to take a stand. It's one of the things that made Google cool before it went public, and it's awesome (and rare, I believe) that it still has values as a public corporation. Other giants limit their political manoeuvring to whatever is profitable for them (publishing giant Elsevier lobbying to limit public access to research, for instance).

Now, perhaps having values that I agree with is awesome marketing as well, and that may or may not corrupt the value as such. In this case, I don't believe it does.

As for keeping civil partnerships and marriage separate under law, that's at least superficially the best solution. Then again, many homosexuals would probably prefer having equal rights to the sanctity of marriage as well, and being denied that right while getting the substitute of civil partnerships may feel limiting to some -- and in the end, equal rights does mean equal rights in every respect.

Not that I personally disagree with you, as I consider religions silly and think people would be better off staying away from them. Preaching atheism, however, is something I don't think will make the world a better place. Equal rights, on the other hand, is something I can support even when it fails.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: A few thoughts
by JAlexoid on Sun 8th Jul 2012 23:01 in reply to "A few thoughts"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I agree on the position that it's the government's responsibility to register a union. What type of union it is and how it works, should not be the responsibility of the government.

That way, Arabs that want to have many wives can have many wives, gay men can be in a union with another gay man, a straight man can be in a union with another straight man(why not?) and so on. (I use "man" as a human, not male)

I mean, we already have corporations and each one of them is a legal person. Just extend something similar to people.

However, that Google shouldn't be doing it is not a reasonable position. Otherwise they should be in China and collaborating with PRC on filtering the web. While Brin is at Google, there will be this side to Google.

Edited 2012-07-08 23:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: A few thoughts
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 8th Jul 2012 23:10 in reply to "RE: A few thoughts"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I agree on the position that it's the government's responsibility to register a union. What type of union it is and how it works, should not be the responsibility of the government.


This is how it works in The Netherlands. We have legal marriage, and ceremonial marriage.

The legal wedding is the only one that has legal meaning. It is performed by a government official, and has all the legal standing usually associated with marriage. Since the first article of our Constitution guarantees unconditional equality for all Dutch citizens, the legal marriage cannot exclude same-sex marriage.

The ceremonial wedding, which can be performed by a priest, rabbi, or whatever, has zero legal status. It has no legal meaning whatsoever. A couple which only holds a ceremonial wedding is not married as far as the state is concerned.

The end result is that religious couples usually do a quick legal wedding at city hall in the morning, only to hold a big ceremonial wedding at the church later that same day, with all the guests and egards. Couples who are not religious usually seek out a beautiful building or outdoor location, and 'rent' the government official, and turn the legal wedding into the big ordeal a wedding usually is. You can even do a quick legal wedding at city hall in the morning, and then a large non-religious ceremonial wedding at a beautiful location presided over by whomever.

The gives freedom to everybody, and ensures the clear separation between church and state - as it should be. This is 2012, this is no time for theocracies anymore.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: A few thoughts
by dimosd on Sun 8th Jul 2012 23:33 in reply to "A few thoughts"
dimosd Member since:
2006-02-10

While I object to gay marriage, I don't have a problem with civil partnership. Civil partnership is simply about getting tax benefits from the state etc., sure, no problem.

Edited 2012-07-08 23:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: A few thoughts
by kwan_e on Mon 9th Jul 2012 01:39 in reply to "A few thoughts"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

First, I don't believe this is something Google should be getting involved with. They're a technology company, not an advocacy group.


IBM used to be a technology company. They were also the first company to officially adopt an equal opportunity program and made it a condition of doing business in the racist south. They then went on to LGBT policies after the disastrous handling of Lynn Conway.

One of the major forces in dismantling apartheid in South Africa was economic boycotting.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: A few thoughts
by OSNevvs on Mon 9th Jul 2012 05:55 in reply to "A few thoughts"
OSNevvs Member since:
2009-08-20

What they should encourage also is legalize marijuana. Everybody smokes it, and yet it's still illegal. Alcohol or tobacco do much more harm.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE: A few thoughts
by spiderman on Mon 9th Jul 2012 07:11 in reply to "A few thoughts"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Me think this would not sort the problem out.
In France we have a civil marriage, called 'PACS'. It's a union between 2 people with the same rights as marriage. 2 brothers can be 'pacsed' together. Homosexuals can have the exact same rights as heterosexual. But we also have a civil marriage that is the same thing but with a different name for a man and a woman. Well, guess what? Some homosexuals still complain that they don't have 'marriage'. I know a lot of perfectly sane homosexuals who are just happy to be pacsed. Still there are a lot of annoying idiots that will fight for a word.
At this point, this is no more about freedom. Marriage is the opposite of freedom in the first place anyway. At this point, it is masochism. Some people just want to be discriminated again and when they are not, they will invent something so they can still say they are discriminated against. You find this in many minorities (feminists, skin color, etc). Some people are not discriminated against or not anymore but still complain.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: A few thoughts
by ammo42 on Mon 9th Jul 2012 10:11 in reply to "RE: A few thoughts"
ammo42 Member since:
2012-07-09

The law concerning PACS is here, and contradicts you in some points:
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI00000...

1) Two brothers can't be PACSed (article 515-2).
2) PACS can be withdrawn by one party without the consent of the other (article 515-7)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: A few thoughts
by dsmogor on Mon 9th Jul 2012 08:18 in reply to "A few thoughts"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I think it very nicely aligns with recent article how MS got involved in politics after DOJ whipped their a*es couple of years ago. Google again innovative here, getting a tech. neutral political mindshare that may benefit them in the future when not that tech neutral voting is in place (IP reform anyone?).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: A few thoughts
by renox on Mon 9th Jul 2012 15:08 in reply to "A few thoughts"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Marriage, by definition, is a religious observance
This is not true anymore, now this is an overloaded term which can mean either religious marriage or civil marriage..

I agree with you, that this overloading shouldn't have happened, but it happened, do not pretend the opposite..

Not that it is a big issue, always prepend marriage with civil or religious and rational people shouldn't have issues, well of course religious people are not very rational, so..

Reply Parent Score: 2