This is a full page ad that will run in the San Jose Mercury news tomorrow. I want to make fun of the wine and cheese crowd flocking to jump on the anti-Prop. 8 bandwagon, but I’m not going to.
Discrimination in any form isn’t acceptable, and banning gay marriage is discrimination. Prop 8 will eliminate the right to marry for same-sex couples in California by amending the state’s Constitution. If you are a registered California voter, I’d like to ask you for a favor – vote against Prop 8.
Here’s a list of people who’ve added their name to the ad:
HONORARY CO-CHAIRS
Sergey Brin, Founder, Google, Inc.
Bill Campbell, Chairman, Intuit Inc.
David Filo, Founder, Yahoo! Inc.
Chuck Geschke, Founder & Chairman, Adobe Systems, Inc.
John Morgridge, Former CEO & Chairman, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Pierre Omidyar, Founder and Chairman, eBay Inc., Founding Partner, Omidyar Network
Sheryl Sandberg, COO, Facebook
Eric Schmidt, CEO, Google, Inc.
Jerry Yang, Founder, Yahoo! Inc.
LEADERS (partial list)
Deborah Barber, Principal, Jackson Hole Group
John Battelle, Chairman & CEO, Federated Media
Larry Birenbaum, Former Senior Vice President, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Lorna Borenstein, President, Move, Inc.
Larry Brilliant, Executive Director, Google.org
Owen Byrd, President, Byrd Development
John Chisholm, Chairman & CEO, CustomerSat, Inc.
Barry Cinnamon, CEO, Akeena Solar
Tod Cohen, Director of Government Affairs, eBay Inc.
LaDoris Cordell, Administrator, Stanford University
Sue Decker, President, Yahoo! Inc.
Jack Dorsey, Chairman, Twitter
David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development & Chief Legal Officer, Google, Inc.
Donna Dubinsky, CEO, Numenta, Inc.
Alan Eustace, SVP, Engineering and Research, Google, Inc.
Naomi Fine, President & CEO, Pro-Tec Data, Inc.
Rachel Glaser COO/CFO, Reunion.com
Carl Guardino, President & CEO, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Andre Haddad, CEO, Shopping.com
Jeff Hawkins, co-Founder Palm, Handspring, and Numenta
David Karnstedt, Investor
Scott Kaspick, Managing Director, Kaspick & Co.
Steve Kirsch, Serial Entrepreneur
John Koza, CEO, Third Millennium
Ross LaJeunesse, Head of State Policy Western US, Google, Inc.
Gary Lauder, Managing Partner, Lauder Partners Venture Capital
Laura Lauder, General Partner, Lauder Partners Venture Capital
Len Lehman, Investor
John Luongo, Former CEO, Vantive Corporation
Roger McNamee, Managing Director & co-Founder, Elevation Partners
Ken McNeely, President, AT&T California
Michael Moritz, Partner, Sequoia Capital
Susan Packard Orr, CEO, Telosa Software, Inc.
Randy Pond, Executive Vice President, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Amy Rao, Founder & CEO, Integrated Archive Systems
Jana Rich, Managing Director, Russell Reynolds
Miriam Rivera, Former Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Google, Inc.
Dan Rosensweig, Investor
Dan Rubin, Partner, Alloy Ventures
Hilary Schneider, Executive Vice President US Region, Yahoo! Inc.
Len Shustek, Chairman, Computer History Museum
Jeff Skoll, Former President, eBay Inc.
Stephanie Tilenius, SVP, eBay North America
Joy Weiss, President & CEO, Dust Networks
Steve Westly, former California State Controller & former SVP eBay Inc.
Evan Williams, CEO, Twitter
Awesome. Glad to see TechCrunch take a stand on the side of anti-bigotry.
That’s what pro-8 people are, BTW. Don’t insult us (those of you out there) by hiding it.
what’s interesting is i have yet to meet a yes on 8 person who was not fully supportive of giving equivalent legal rights. it’s almost a semantical battle about a single word.
separation of church/state says imho that no on 8 is the right answer as long as there are no societal differences between gay and hetero couples. and i personally don’t know of any.
except – if we expand the concept from “couple” to “family” – where we run into lots of data that shows kids do best when they have both gender parents – i.e. moms do matter, and dads do matter.
that said, i think we would all agree if every orphan in the world was adopted by loving gay couples, the world would be a much better place.
but imho it raises a legitimate concern about unintended consequences. all laws have them. If there is at least one difference that society should be allowed to recognize when its appropriate, especially relating to kids, than shouldn’t we do something else besides make a blanket law of pure equivalence?
Maybe Michael should start a politics blog. This has got people pretty fired up.
Except a google trozan horse (Sheryl Sandberg), nobody from facebook and MS, who know their business. I know Arrington not married yet, but his blog prevailed mostly because he started first, and he is sure to get a beating when he comes to politics.
Not that i’m against marriage, but i definitely got better job than to campaign for that, even for campaigning i have heavier issues than this symbolic one.
The status quo affords gay couples ALL the rights of hetero couples. So please don’t call it a rights issue for gay couples. It’s NOT a rights issue: it is purely a definitional one: What does the word “marriage” mean?
If Prop 8 fails, how long before there’s a law proposed (or imposed from the bench) that would change the meaning of “marriage” to include gay marriage? Of course that’s the next step: it’s only logical.
But, then, that’s where we find the problem.
If that were to happen, reasonable, law abiding, mild-mannered families (by that I mean millions of normal, everyday families, not the “lunatic” fringe caricature of Christian folk) will no longer have a legal justification for having their children opt-out of gay marriage lessons in school. They could be found guilty of forcing truancy on their children.
Churches who don’t support gay marriage can be prosecuted and jailed for not performing gay marriages; they could be prosecuted and jailed for not hiring someone because they are in a gay marriage.
That IS a change in rights. Marriage has been one man/one woman for many, many generations.
As was posted elsewhere, without some definitional foundation, why not polygamy? Why not under age polygamy?
Mark, by calling me a “bigot” you are saying that (by definition) I am irrationally intolerant…which in my case and the case of 99% of Yes on 8 voters is simply false. We just want marriage to be defined as between a man and woman. It’s that simple….but for some reason I don’t think you’ll see it that way. Good luck on Tuesday!
Yeah, Mark. I’m not a bigot just because I want to redefine freedom to not be applicable to black people. They’re not like me, and so they don’t deserve that right anyway. And I can give you a lot more reasons to support my flawed logic, because these things help me sleep at night. It’s that simple… but for some reason, I don’t think you’ll see it that way.
Here! Here!
Why not polygamy? I don’t particular care one way or another, but there is certainly a very valid cultural and social argument for voting against gay marriage. Trying to claim it is outright bigotry is just an attempt to shut down any discourse on the topic.
As far as I can tell, if I were a gay man I’d be happy to live in a nation that already grants me more rights and acceptance than the vast majority of the world and be more than fine with being offered the same rights as a legal marriage does under the civil union phrase.
Why is it people constantly compare the homosexual movement to the civil and gender rights movements when they are fundamentally different. Homosexuality is an action that is taken as a response to a desire/impulse. Being black or a certain gender has nothing to do with your desires or actions. Society should be able to decide which actions it sanctions and parents should be able to help define which actions their children are taught are acceptable.
This sums up how I feel:
http://www.pres...ngmarriage.org/
Jordan R said:
“Why is it people constantly compare the homosexual movement to the civil and gender rights movements when they are fundamentally different. Homosexuality is an action that is taken as a response to a desire/impulse. ”
Because love is more a less a human right. You seem to suggest that homosexuals either enter loveless marriages or forgoe love altogether, which hardly seems fair. Your supposition on desire/impulse is just a smokescreen.. after all, once upon a time left-handed people were forced to scribe with their right hand.
To: Jordan R.
“Why is it people constantly compare the homosexual movement to the civil and gender rights movements when they are fundamentally different. Homosexuality is an action that is taken as a response to a desire/impulse. Being black or a certain gender has nothing to do with your desires or actions. Society should be able to decide which actions it sanctions and parents should be able to help define which actions their children are taught are acceptable.”
In addition to the fact that you’re trying to legislate away a target group’s rights, this statement is incredibly flawed logic from its core. In the same way that being African American or a woman is not a choice, being attracted to someone of the same sex is not a choice, because if it were who would choose to be discriminated against?
We should detest and shame the movement of those who would deny rights to others just because they’re different. Same-sex unions have been legal in California for 4 months now (and for years in Mass.) and it has had zero negative effects on “the institution of marriage” or on children or on families.
What protects families most in the U.S. (both traditional and non-traditional) and legitimizes marriage as an institution is to give equal rights for all people to have access to it. Why can’t we let everyone be just as miserable?
Kudos to Michael and TechCrunch for taking a stand! Kudos to Larry Page, Segei Brin, Apple, the rest of the list here and all other high profile business people and celebrities who not only publicly oppose Prop 8 but also donated to the fight to end civil rights discrimination.
Incidentally, divorce rates in Massachusetts are the third lowest in the nation (where gay unions have been legal the longest.) At about 2.5% annually they’re over 60% lower than in red states with high concentrations of religious conservatives.
Jordan R:
“Why is it people constantly compare the homosexual movement to the civil and gender rights movements when they are fundamentally different. Homosexuality is an action that is taken as a response to a desire/impulse. Being black or a certain gender has nothing to do with your desires or actions. Society should be able to decide which actions it sanctions and parents should be able to help define which actions their children are taught are acceptable.”
I agree with you Jordan R. As a black man who lives in America, I get downright offended, when people compare the homosexual movement to the blacks civil rights movement. Homosexuals will never go through what blacks in America have endured in our history. Blacks are still fighting for true equality in America. Am I wrong about this? Well since this story centers on “Silicon Valley”, I would like to know how many BLACK EMPLOYEES WORK AT THESE SILICON VALLEY COMPANIES? Maybe Micheal can write a post about that! It would be nice to see more BLACK PEOPLE featured on these business web sites and magazines. Oh wait, maybe I need to be gay for these SILICON VALLEY COMPANIES TO GIVE A DARN!
HAD TO BE SAID!!!!! HAD TOO!!!!!
There’s a such thing as rational intolerance. In the way that your logic is simple, it also amounts to intolerance. There’s no controversy here, just be honest about it.
Great news!
You can still define your marriage as being between a man and a woman even if Prop 8 fails!
Yea for you. You win. You control what happens in your own life.
Now let other people live theirs.
Marriage is a cultural issue. Great.
You have your culture, but let other people have theirs.
You don’t want your children to ever find out about other people or their rights as human beings? Fine, put them in private school or join a cult somewhere. I hear seats are still available if you act fast.
The status quo affords gay couples ALL the rights of hetero couples. So it’s NOT a rights issue: it is purely a definitional one: What does the word “marriage” mean?
If Prop 8 fails, how long before there’s a law proposed (or imposed from the bench) that would change the meaning of “marriage” to include gay marriage? We all know that would be the next step: it’s only logical.
But, then, that’s where we find the problem.
If that were to happen, reasonable, law abiding, mild-mannered families will no longer have a legal justification for having their children opt-out of gay marriage lessons in school. They could be found guilty of forcing truancy on their children.
Churches who don’t support gay marriage can be prosecuted and jailed for not performing gay marriages; they could be prosecuted and jailed for not hiring someone because they are in a gay marriage.
That IS a change in rights. Marriage has been one man/one woman for many, many generations.
As was posted earlier, without some definitional foundation, why not polygamy? Why not under age polygamy?
This is non-sense. If two people want to get married, and they are not harming you in the process, then who are you to stop them from marrying?
What about fathers who want to teach their children about their religious beliefs of marriage between a man and a woman? In Massachusetts where same-sex marriage is legal, that is a jailable offense now. So, if I teach my children to be heterosexual and I’m thrown in jail for it, then they ARE harming me.
The right of religious freedom trumps the privilege of same-sex marriage, especially when Domestic Partners already have all the rights and privileges of heterosexual married couples.
http://www.legi...;file=297-297.5
What?! It’s a jail-able offense if fathers “want to teach their children about their religious beliefs of marriage between a man and a woman” in Massachusetts?! What are you talking about?
Of course it’s not.
Look up your facts bigot.
@April: Wow, looks like somebody has anger issues.
Actually, I have done my research. You’ve offered no citation to prove your point, allow me to offer mine.
http://www.worl...RTICLE_ID=45594
A father WAS jailed in Massachusetts for insisting that he be notified before his children were taught about homosexuality in KINDERGARTEN.
Look up your facts, April.
Your definition of bigotry fits your views. A true bigot is not one who simple disagrees with your point and chooses to defend his.
You call people bigots for little or no reason is the equivalent of crying wolf and help hide true bigots from the public light where they can be scorned for thier behavior
Big and poweful on a blog you are – I suspect however if you were forced to remove emotion and make your case you using real logic, you would most surely fail.
@matt how do your religious views trump my marriage views exactly? Not quite sure I understand how _that_ works.
@Matt: Did you read the full article? He was jailed for being disruptive. Not because he was trying to protect his children. Besides, they weren’t being taught about homosexuality, they were being shown that families can be comprised of more than just the typical mommy-daddy-kids. No one would complain if the book illustrated single-parent families, how are same-sex parents any different? That father (and presumably you too) should worry less about how that book will affect his kids and worry more about how his stand against it will affect ALL of us.
@matt: Sorry to tell you bud, but you can’t teach your children to be gay or straight. You can teach till your blue in the face and in the end, they will do what is in them… and yes, that does mean they COULD be gay or lesbian. Good luck with that.
We just want marriage to be defined as between a man and woman. It’s that simple….
If that’s not bigotry than neither is wanting marriage to be restricted to within the races (which was the case until the early 70’s when those pesky “activist judges” struck it down). Just because you state your case in with a disarming smile does not make the underlying assumptions any less bigoted.
Gay families have a right to the same protections offered under the laws as straight families.
How do you offer a citation to disprove an imaginary law? I really think these people scan the internet looking for key words and then start non-sensical arguments as Nov. 4th draws closer.
A vote of “Yes” means that you meet the basic definition of a bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, sex, affiliation or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Hey M-dawg: A vote of “No” means that you meet the basic definition of a bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, sex, affiliation or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Josh – pull your cabeza out of your tuchus.
If you’re straight and are voting NO on 8, then you’re clearly protecting the rights of people who *are* different from you.
@ JM: Poor thing … you just can’t help yourself, your bigotry runneth over!
@ Kyle – Quite frankly, I think what you seem to be referring to is a wedding, rather than a marriage. I can’t believe there are people out there who seem to think issues like this are going to affect their lives. We talk about human rights abuses and brand nations like China as human rights violators – when in fact we at home tend to ignore that we might as well be doing the same!
Lets all remove the veil of religion and remember that we’re all human first.
Mark, bigotry itself doesn’t have to include irrationality. Bigot.
One man – one woman
Don’t forget the divorce attorneys!
They should ban divorce and stone anyone who wants one, and retroactively punish those who’ve had a divorce before, because marriage is for life.
Add my name to that list
That’s right. Rock on Mager. I’m with you. I did an absentee ballot for Florida and voted no on proposition 2 which is the equivalent of 8 but for Florida.
“Discrimination in any form isn’t acceptable”. Micheal, is the ban on polygamy discrimination? A practicing muslim man cannot practice polygamy in the United States. The Koran allows a Muslim man to marry 4 wives, so why aren’t YOU and the Silicon Valley crowd campaigning against the ban on polygamy? It saddens me to see such double standards!!!
Because unfortunately it’s well documented that many of those types of marriages are not in the interests of the woman. Didn’t you watch Big Love?
These marriages are entered into with the full will & volition of both parties, whether male-male/ male-female/ female-female etc.
Add my name to the list (i already voted absentee anyway)! This has NO place in the constitution.
Huh? Well documented by who? Is such documentation greater that the Holy Koran? Are you greater than the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)?
Millions of women all over the world are in happy polygamous marriages, so what gives you the right to say that “those types of marriages are not in the interests of the woman”?
Your answer clearly shows the double standards I’m talking about.
Antje,
You’re citing a television show as your proof? Wow, that tells me how much weight your comments really bear.
That was a JOKE, duh…. (do I really have to explain that?)
Actually, you do when you use the phrase “well-documented” and then only offer one source of documentation; a television show. And no, smilies don’t make up for it.
Al Brown (below) said it better than I could. I’m too lazy to google, but most of the pro-articles are written by men, and the women quoted in them have acquiesced for reasons that may not stand validation if they were truly free and had plenty of (other) options or weren’t brain-washed.
Antje, please don’t be silly! Based on your comments, all the MILLIONS of women all over the world in happy polygamous marriages are either:
A) Not free
B) Don’t have plenty of other options
C) Brain-washed
Your need to come out of under the little rock you’re living in, and explore the world for yourself.
You go to great lengths to justify SODOMY – an unnatural act – and yet with the same breath condemn polygamy! I pity you!
Joe are you for REAL? I mean really, do you exist or you just go around to wind folks up? I did try to justify sodomy (an unnatural act according to whom exactly? the puritans?) I’m not condemning polygamy. If everyone wants to be there then let them be there. My point is that many women are in polygamous relationships due to outside circumstances (ignorance, religious or societal pressure, etc) and if they had alternatives they would not be there. In your previous America, we do not arrange marriages for the most part nor force people into marriages. You don’t even make any sense, but it’s obvious that this is an issue of deep importance to you.
As long as they are consenting adults the gov’t needs to stay the hell out of the bedroom.
I reject your pity. I’m sure you’ll be praying for me too (did you hear that? it was the sound of my eyes rolling back in my head) but I don’t need your saving.
@ some dummy: You really are DUMB!!! How do you know that the MILLIONS of women in polygamous marriages don’t have alternatives, and are there solely based on “outside circumstances”? Your assumption makes you look SILLY.
Sorry, I ain’t praying for you
Now go crawl back under that rock you have been hiding.
I’m all for polygamy as long as it’s between consenting adults.
Finding edge cases is just a way to justify discrimination.
Nonsense. Marriage is between man and woman. All you people are fucking sick in the head. Later marriage between man and beast, woman and beast.
What next. U all are a bunch of crack heads? Crack in the skull and on crack too
Now consenting adults wanting to be deviant is their own right but it is another to call it hate because you do not see eye to eye of on the filth of same sex marriage.
Well sounds like a good bouncing board to boycott all those tech companies in countries that do not want your fucked view imposed on them via your stance.
http://www.prot...om/video/view/6
Hey I got a question. What is Homosexual polygamy? gay orgy or group same sex marriage with more than one spouse/wife or husband?
Can you see it? a bed fill with 8 men or 8 women having sex and they are all married to one person in the room. Kind of makes it legal for their orgies huh. So polygamy would take on a new twist.
Mike you may be unto something
Me too. The social arrangements people make amongst themselves is their own business.
That said, there are many factors that make many women submit to polygamy. Even in a free or semi-free society. Economics. Social coercion. Religious dogma. A shortage of suitable men.
A women may decide it is in her interests to go along with such an arrangement. But it remains to be seen that a woman would make the same choice in more ideal conditions.
Let’s be honest though. Many women face violence if they don’t go along with it. Even from their own families.
Zoophilia too. With consent of course.
Agreed. http://www.noonprop8.com/
What will you endorse next arrington? Nambla? Openid?
Yes. Banning polygamy is discrimination, but just like with the civil rights movement you can only take small steps.
joe, I love how people use an argument terminator as “are you better than G-O-D?” thereby making it completely irrational to argue.
banning polygamy is a law, but it’s not a state/national constitutional amendment for Christ’s/ Muhammed’s sake. If you don’t like the law, then lobby against it. It wasn’t until 1948 that they outlawed banning interracial marriages.
Prop 8 would also ban polygamous marriage. If you don’t want gay marriage, then don’t get married to someone of the same sex as you.
Take it one issue at a time.
Muslims are not for polygamy; it depends on the culture, and cultural acceptance. The Qur’an itself says nothing about polygamy. The Haditz says polygamy is acceptable because the prophet had four wives, and under the condition that the husband can treat all four wives exactly the same.
If you accept polygamy, and wives are treated differently, that IS discrimination. The wife’s rights may be taken or reduced by being not-the-1st-wife.
If you accept gay marriage, tell me how that is discrimination? Gay marriage is simply a right.
what if you accept polygamy and treat the wives equally?
Political postings (regardless of the subject) are the precise reason I stopped reading Slashdot.
Please don’t go down that same road.
then why did you bother to leave a comment here
he said reading, he didn’t say anything about writing
Because people are hypocrites. They love politics and can’t stay away from giving other people their opinions. I, too, love letting others know of mine.
At least it is technology related.
I don’t think it’s any more subjective than many other laws that outlaw what might be someone’s personal desires…like marijuana lovers discriminated over chocolate lovers.
The racial descrimination stuff of the past was based on inherent qualities of people and not behaviors. Discrimination based on behavior is practically the basis of almost all of our laws…so I don’t think “Discrimination is always wrong” rightly covers this issue.
Sure, some people think homosexuality is inherent, but many people have made changes in their sexual behavior…straight to celibate, gay to straight and such…so I’m inclined to believe it is a personal preference in the un-inherent behavior category.
I think a lot of people and companies are trying to jump on this like it’s the next African-American civil rights issue…but it is inherently a very different situation.
If eating chocolate gets banned by law…sure, that sucks for chocolate lovers, and may seem very silly, but I wouldn’t say it’s a bigoted, “discriminatory (in the bad, unfair sense)”, or legally untenable form of discrimination.
I think ultimately it comes down to a vote on making laws like this, so I am somewhat glad to see it coming to this…though I think it should have been a vote to add homosexual marriage…ultimately this is essentially the same thing.
You’re right, it should not have come to this. But a law has already been passed, then rejected by activist judges. They left the people no choice but to have their democratic voice heard through other avenues. The issue here is not gay marriage or discrimination, the issue is democratic freedom by any means necessary.
Making something into a law doesn’t make it less intolerant or bigoted. If a country banned Christianity and persecuted all Christian residents, that’s still discriminatory even if it’s in their constitution, because it excludes people by religion.
Same thing: if a country banned black people from voting and forced them into slavery, it’s still discriminatory.
Discriminatory doesn’t always mean morally reprehensible, particularly when it is based on behavior.
I discriminate in hiring based on skills. I’m a huuuuuuuuuuuge discriminator. I discriminate in wages based on productivity and I am intolerant of people who lie about work they are doing with our company or sales people who would lie to potential customers. I’m hugely intolerant and discriminatory here…but it’s not *always* wrong to be intolerant or to discriminate…and in many situations, it is quite legal.
Whether people think it’s wrong in this proposition I guess is up to them from a voting standpoint, and from what I’ve seen, it largely comes down to if they think the lifestyle is a choice or not.
Fortunately for all of us, we have peaceful democratic processes and a fairly flexible government and freedom of speech to try to peacefully persuade eachother, so yeay for that.
Well, upon further contemplation of this topic, I think it can be argued that the current marriage laws discriminate based on a person’s sex, which could well be unconstitutional.
Then again, I would also think that affirmative action could be considered unconstitutional if that were the case. I believe that the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination based on stuff like that was ok if it served the interests of the state. (not that I necessarily agree)
Our military also discriminates based on sex for arguably pragmatic reasons.
I think it can be argued that one-man, one-woman, one-lifetime is a state interest for procreating and raising children.
While heterosexual marriage has been the cornerstone of societies since like forever, It may be the case that the many who find homosexuality to be morally wrong may want to vote the government out of the marriage business entirely…though the impact would cause an even worse disintegration of the family unit…which I think many fear would destroy society if non-government organizations were left to track who is married to who…and also that laws against adultery and divorce would become impossible.
Ultimately, even if judges decide it violates the equal protection clause, I think it may end up ultimately in a rewriting of the Equal Protection Clause to have more family-focused wording. Either that would happen, or the government would probably get out of the marriage business before mainstream America would want to have any laws that supported homosexual “marriage”.
Where it ends up I think ultimately comes down to what people have as a collective sense of what they deem unfair, which is somewhat subjective.
On a non-legal side note, God definitely considers homosexuality wrong, though he still loves homosexual people. The word of marriage has theological impact for lots of Americans (destroying a marriage is a sin), and thus they are going to define marriage as God does, and very much don’t want to support anything that communicates marriage to be anything else. Many nonreligious people similarly object on similar, though more subjective grounds.
I think the government may need to get out of the marriage business: Civil Unions for all, require about 1-3 years to dissolve a Civil Union, and serious legal punishment for cheating in Civil Unions…perhaps a minimum time of Civil Union should be required for adoptions.
I think that would have a good effect, and be better than the status quo for everybody…even Christians.
I’m also against abortion, and for a flat tax…maybe liberal enough for the fair tax. I feel like running for an elected office now.
Please don’t go down the path of self-destruction and add political opinion to TechCrunch. I have plenty of sources for that – and that’s not why I read your blog. Start acting like the Tech Hollywood group think and you will alienate your base. Hedge hog principle – remember?
I guess there are a lot of bigots in even progressive California, considering Prop 22 passed with > 60% of the votes.
Prop 8 only repeals the judicial fiat on Prop 22.
and if prop 8 fails, we’ll know the people changed their minds
…or that lots of big names are tossing money at “No on Prop 8″ to persuade people that they’re “bigots” if they don’t vote it down.
If someone has the right to vote no, I have the right to vote yes, it’s that simple. If someone has the right to say, “I want the country to allow same-sex marriage” then I have the right to say, “I don’t want it.” Oddly enough, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution protects both of our points of view.
It WOULD however be encroaching on my constitutional rights to not be able to express that I think homosexuality is against God’s will.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
If allowing same-sex marriage by law means that I’m now forced to accept it, teach it to my kids, provide in vitro services for same-sex couples if I’m a doctor, put children in same-sex homes if I’m a Christian adoption agency or any other ways that “prohibiting the free exercise” of my religion can occur (a hefty reason this nation was founded), then yes, I will vote against it.
I know that many have left the notion of an almighty God, knowing everything, including what’s best for his children, but the founders fought to keep that alive, so much so that many states’ inaugural oaths included commitments to serve God and Christ.
Even if No on Prop 8 wins, it doesn’t make it same-sex marriage right.
And one last thing…why does the issue of “taking away” rights keep coming up. What’s taken away if Prop 8’s passed? The name of marriage? It’s my understanding that civil unions have obtained all the rights of a married couple. Am I misinformed? Who’s got proof to show one way or another? Not someone credible saying one way or another, but the actual laws, side by side. THAT’S what I’d like to see.
Oracle posted its own corporate stance in an article called “Oracle Opposes California Proposition 8″ on the Oracle intranet homepage.
Can you please email me the Oracle article?
And Michael, I can’t marry my sister or my mother.
That’s discrimination too, isn’t it?
I hate it when Repugs try to impose their moral beliefs on me and prohibit me from marrying my sister or multiple women at the same time.
My right to marry anyone I want is a Constitutional right. It’s right there in the Constitution!
No. That is based on science. Inbreeding, unless done with the second cousin or beyond, has a very large chance of bringing on genetic abnormalities.
So, by your logic, gay siblings should be able to marry, right? They certainly won’t run into the “genetic abnormality” problem that is of such concern to the scientific community.
First cousin actually. And in fact with modern technology they can even test and ensure that there is no likelihood of increased risk by having a child with your first cousin.
@Steve: 1st? Ok. My mistake. And if we can show that a genetic abnormality isn’t present then there is no real reason not to allow people to marry their siblings or parents.
@James: No. Because that would then be giving rights to one group that cannot be given to the other, unless as Steve mentioned genetic testing has gotten rid of the genetic abnormality side of the equation.
I believe that ban has some basis in genetics…
There shouldn’t any discrimination on who can enter into a contract.
Now a government defined marriage contract does get messy when you apply that logic to it.
Perhaps government should not be in the business of defining social contracts at all. And I think that’s ultimately where this is headed.
Government may define different types of social contracts but also should allow others to be defined and registered as well.
Traditional marriage could be one. Gay marriage might be another.
Two siblings that want to cohabitate and be responsible for each other might be another. Polygamy might be another.
Each of these types of contracts could be defined and all the participants have to do is show up, pay a fee and sign the contract. And the legislature should not be allowed to change the terms of the contract without the express permission of the participants either.
And none of these contracts should handing out special privileges to people just because they are participating in one, other than society recognizing the contract has been entered into. In other words, government should not be giving benefits based on having signed one of these things or forcing business to do so.
I think this approach will end this controversy for good.
After giving this much thought recently, I have to agree with Al. I don’t believe the government should be involved in social contracts at all.
The reality is that “marriage” has generally been a religious contract anyway, and it should stay that way.
Now, I am one of those who believe that marriage is clearly supposed to be between a man and a woman. There is certainly no room for gay marriage, it just makes no sense.
In fact, I find it interesting some of the comments above talking about marrying your relatives and how there is some basis in genetics for not allowing it. Are you serious?
I am pretty sure there is a pretty good basis in BIOLOGY for not allowing gay marriage, too. Duh!
Anyway, this is all about certain people getting more rights from the government then other people. It really isn’t fair, but it has nothing to do with marriage.
So, without the end of government sanctioned social contracts, I have to say Yes on Prop 8.
I agree. Why do I have to get permission from the government to get married? In the olden days, a man and a woman did it over a Bible with a church official present. Marriage is between the two people and God as defined in the Bible. If it makes gay couples feel better that the state’s little certificate applies to them as well, then so be it. But if they want a real marriage then they have some soul searching to do. For some reason God thought we would be happiest entering a marriage consisting of the two genders.
The Bible also teaches us to love our all including people of the same sex. As a man, I can love another man, it certainly doesnt mean I have to engage in a perverse type of sex with him. Clearly it is perverse when you think about it both by God’s rules and the rules of nature.
Civil union with all state benefits afforded to regular marriages….YES
Actually called marriage….no.
God does not exist. Isn’t it obvious?
nice i like that
i think for the first time in my life i have love for you michael. many, many thanks for leveraging your reach to support this initiative.
Kelly, would you support my Allah-given right to marry 4 wives?
only if they wanted to marry you.
At least people voting yes on prop8 are being consistent with nature and evolution.
Believe in God or not, voting YES on Prop 8 is the only logical action, isn’t it?
Wow, some people with some logical sense! Bravo!
Calling someone a bigot is a little silly don’t you think? Because now you are calling me a name and in effect saying that you are not willing to tolerate someone who thinks like me. That makes YOU a bigot. The ‘no on 8′ crowd is preaching tolerance “as long as you think the way we do”. That’s not tolerance and that’s not promoting diversity. It’s so much easier to talk the talk of moral relativism than it is to walk the walk, isn’t it?
Not at all. No more than calling someone who irrationally hates black people a racist. It’s not name calling when it is true, and this isn’t even about preaching tolerance. This is about equality under the law.
Calling an adjustment of semantics in the state constitution “irrational hatred” of gay people is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? I don’t hate anyone irrationally. That is an unfounded accusation and someday, you will be punished in this country for a statement like that. Prop 8 is the tiny little wedge that brings down the entire first amendment. And you should let the ‘no on Prop 8′ people know that they need to stop using ‘tolerance’ as a platform for marginalizing the ‘yes on Prop 8′ people. Equality is just another buzz word to make one’s position sound positive in a moral sense.
Sames-sex couples already have equality under the law, it’s called a Domestic Partnership. Read the law, before you cite it.
http://www.legi...;file=297-297.5
See 297.5
Heh. You say ’separate but equal’ I say discrimination. Which one one out in the end?
Matt, thanks for citing the law so we can see that this isn’t about “taking away rights.” Therefore, this is not a civil rights issue akin to setting slaves free or giving women the right to vote. Sexuality is something completely different than race. You never hear someone say “oh, I used to be black.”….well, you could make a humorous case against that, but…
James, thanks for pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes on. Calling a spade, a spade is what we need more of in this debate. “Equality” is a powerfully charged word that’s being used aggressively to push an agenda. There’s a reason that the majority of the people of this nation, as well as nations throughout history, have not embraced the idea of normalizing same-sex relationships. Yes, it has it’s foundations in religion, more correctly, in God’s law, but any time God tosses down ANY laws from on high it has practical relevance.
We may not both believe in the same things, but irrespective of what anyone believes there are natural consequences to all the actions of mankind.
@Matt: Domestic Partnership and Civil Unions are not Marriage. Both DP and CU are state-specific, and you revoke your rights by moving. This includes if you go to vacation in other countries: if your domestic partner or civilly-united partner is in an accident, that country does not have to recognize your union or partnership. In a marriage, on the other hand, you simply have to say “I’m his wife” or “I’m her husband” and they get treated as such.
It’s called something different, because it *is* different. So yes, this *does* take rights away from us.
And no one has proven you can change sexuality, Joe Yes.
@Brendan: Actually, my formerly homosexual friends are pretty good proof that sexuality can change.
One Man – One Woman
thankfully massachusetts disagrees with you.
Thankfully, 47 other states, and the vast majority of Americans disagrees with you
SEE? Barack Hussein is right!!! There are only 47 states in the US!!!
*Unfortunately*, 47 other states disagree with you. NO ON PROP 8!
I am proud to see the founder of my employer as one of the honorary co-chairs.
How about we level the playing field, and abolish the institution of marriage altogether? Or, for the next election season, how about a proposition is put on the ballot allowing people of only certain races to marry? I’m sure many would easily shoot it down. How about we pass a prop to ban shotgun weddings because two teenagers were not informed about birth control? How about banning marriages for people with poor credit? How about banning marriage for people who are obese?
With Prop. 8, we begin the process of stripping away all of your rights to quality… The concept of Prop. 8 is discrimination and non-equality.
For the Prop. 8 supporters, imagine your rights to quality taken away… It’s 2008 – let’s progress, and not regress.
I prefer the word “marriage” being stricken from the law books. Make it all civil unions and if people want a “marriage” they can go to their church. This is the way it’s done in many many other countries.
Right on!
I am a muslim woman and I want to marry my two half-black chimps. I guess that I will have to relocate to Massachusetts… bummer!
excellent idea. God is the only authority able to grant a marriage. The state issues a piece of paper that is of even less value then the paper used for the 700billion dollar bailout.
Civil union I suppose, but where is the line drawn. Clearly the polly marriages will want the same treatment.
I am imaging my rights to equality taken away. I am remembering the pastor who was sued for not marrying a same-sex couple. I am remembering the photographer sued for not shooting a gay ceremony. I am remembering the father jailed for not wanting his children to learn about homosexuality in a Massachusetts kindergarten.
My equality of religious beliefs will be taken away if Proposition 8 doesn’t pass. That violates the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States. How about those equal rights?
Tolerance is a two-way street.
That Massachusetts father is a nut who busted into a school meeting and wouldn’t leave. Too bad the whole story isn’t quite so helpful to your point, eh?
My equality of religious beliefs will be taken away if Proposition 8 doesn’t pass. That violates the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Crazy talk.
@EH: What about the pastor? The photographer? The fertility specialist? You can’t disprove me if you only “disprove” one of my points.
It is crazy talk, because we shouldn’t even have to talk about it. This is common sense. Vote YES on 8! http://proposition8.net/
It’s your site, Michael, and you have a right to post about whatever you want. But honestly, this doesn’t belong here. All the wise people I know avoid instigating discussions of politics and religion with acquaintances and clients.
I applaud you, Michael. It is your conviction, integrity and courage, raising critical issues in life that are too important to go not discussed regardless of the audience.
Because this issue is clearly more important than the various genocides occurring on this planet right at this very moment right? I mean I understand Google, etc getting involved (as they say they have many gay employees), but techcrunch? Bit of a stretch.
This issue is important, and we discuss it ad nauseam elsewhere. If the time and place for every important issue is HERE and NOW, our lives would be a cacophony of distractionary yelling and we’d get nothing done.
Opinions on prop 8 shouldn’t be part of the conversation here.
one man – one woman.
how about I make my own decisions, instead taking advise from others
How about you let other people do the same. Gay couples don’t need your advice on whether to get married. Live and let live, buddy.
The problem is that once same-sex marriage is approved, homosexuals won’t live and let live. The proof is in the history; pastors and churches sued for not performing gay marriages, doctors sued for not performing artificial insemination (even though the doctor gave them a good referral), photographers sued for not filming gay commitment ceremonies.
Take you own advice and live and let live! Same-sex domestic partners already have all the rights and privileges of a married couple according to California Family Code 297.5.
Stating that you can make your own decisions rather than taking advice from others is a perfect answer. If you do not approve of two men or two women marrying one another, then do not marry someone of the same sex. Stay out of the way of their lives, and I’m sure they will stay out of yours.
You see the abuse of marriage every day… Brittney Spears marrying some guy, and filing for divorce a few days later.
This is why I am a proponent for marriage for everyone, or abolishing marriage altogether. The people who will stay with their partner for life will do that, and those who will not, will not.
How about you let *me* do the same. Don’t ban gay marriage! Let me decide if *I* want to get married to a man or a woman.
Yes, This does not belong here. From now on, you have one less reader.
unsubscribed!
http://www.tech...tful-but-arent/
I personally like a little socal/cultural debate thrown in for good measure. In fact I will double my subscription to make up for sam’s defection!
So the valley is a valley of fags
Shiit. I just had a great idea. If I get some queers on my start up I may get funding
After I get enough cash I could then fire their asses. Of course the fire they are thinking about
I’m sure Michael Arrington will cry tonight. NOT. Thank you, Michael.
He sure will with you behind him
Yes on 8 – One man, one woman. The No on 8 crowd tries to say it’s discrimination. This is just their way of trying to shove their beliefs down others’ throats and “stick it” to tradition – so funny that these guys who worship at the altar of tolerance are only tolerant of their position.
Sounds like you have some homo phob tendencies! “Shove… Down other’s throats”? Have any secrets you are hiding?
It’s okay, he has issues.
Just had to throw this out there since it pretty much refutes most criticisms against Gay Marriage except for the religious one, which the whole Separation of Church and State thing should do. http://grove.uf...aymarriage.html
Well, it’s not like there aren’t a lot of people out there who see “the whole separation of church and state thing” as a flaw in the system.
Too true. Also, I meant the separation of church and state part sarcastically.
I know it’s not to be trivialized. 
I’m laughing hysterically over “Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.” And, “Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.”
Too hilarious…
If gay marriage were forced on a person, I would be against it. However, it is not. It is two people making a logical decision to be together and be wedded.
Whether this law passes or not, gay people will still be together, and in reality on that front it doesn’t change things much. There are no valid reasons to deny this group the right to wed. Would you vote to allow racial segregation again? You know, legal racism? Prop 8 is just a new twist on the old segregation laws that were enforced in the US. Segregation was wrong back then, and it still is.
My wife and I will be voting No on prop. 8 and you should too.
I wonder how many ‘yes’ voters, are purely voting that way because their religion tells them to.
I wonder how many ‘no’ voters, are purely voting that way because TechCrunch and Silicon Valley leaders tell them to.
I wonder how many uncles have molested you.
@ Brendan: I wonder how many little boys you’re molesting? You should be ashamed of yourself.
All of them. The “Yes On 8″ campaign is bankrolled by the Mormons.
made my day, thanks.
So, you are a religious bigot, and that is somehow ok?
How does this fit in with your tolerance arguments?
There’s no such thing as ‘my religion’ though technically i’m Orthodox. But I don’t want people being jailed because their religion tells them not to consider gay ‘unions’ as marriages. They have their beliefs, you have yours. You want others to respect your beliefs? Respect other’s.
Nuff said.
If two or more people agree and it does not endanger anyone else – I fail to see how it is anybody’s business.
And how are you sure it doesn’t endanger anyone?
Joe are you for real? I think polygamy (in YOUR sense I assume it means one husband + many wives; not allowing for one wife + many husbands or even one man + many male partners or one woman+many women partners) is way more endangering to women than gay marriage is to anyone.
@ antje: You really are a joke!!! What evidence do you have to support your assertion that polygamy is “way more endangering to women than gay marriage is to anyone”?
We all agree that homosexuality is against nature itself. You may pretend not to agree, but deep down you know it’s true! Read your history books to see the HORRORS homosexuality has unleashed on any community that accepted it.
Oh Justin, so you mean all of the people above on that list are unwise then? They all run major companies, which have more clients than Techcrunch. It’s call freedom of speech.
Seems like people are getting so mad on this issue that they launched a massive dos attack on the site:
http://www.mark...tory.aspx?guid={07D55D3C-08BA-4429-BCDF-9EBDC9FBB9DA}
As I said, Michael has a right to say whatever he wants personally or in the context of his business – that’s free speech.
As for the people on the list: they put their name on a newspaper advertisement. Bravo. The difference is they didn’t send out a mailer to all of their customers as well.
Mike, good for you for writing about this, and I applaud the self control on the non-lampooning… you’ve got my support
A marriage is traditionally an arrangement to protect and give security for the birthing and rearing of children. The idea that same sex advocates must have a marriage to solemnize their love is just another sacrifice to the political correctists who believe that everything and everybody must be equal in every way. Man & Woman = Marriage. Homosexual & Homosexual = CA Domestic Partnership. Are these unions the same or different? If different, than define them differently. CA Dom Part agreements bestow EVERY single right as marriage. But the correctists want something that is very different to be defined the same so that everybodys’ feelings are “protected”. Protecting traditional marriage protects the little children from ambitious indoctrination they will otherwise receive and at least gives them a better chance to live in a home with a mother and father than will be the case if Prop 8 does not pass. Prop 8 harms nobody because same sex unions already receive EVERY right and privilege under CA Dom Part Agreement as same sex marriage, in California. Please vote yes on Prop 8 to protect children.
PS: Without going into a long discussion, here is one example of where the correctists wish to take us: In California it is illegal for a real estate agent to use the term “Family Room” in a description of property. If Prop 8 passes there will be many more persuasive curtailments of free speech, exercise of religion, exercise of conscience et al. It will be illegal for a man and a woman to be united as Man & Woman (Fact check the CA Supreme Court decision). Now thats discrimination for you.
Will somebody please think of the children!
Thank you for having some sense!
“A marriage is traditionally an arrangement to protect and give security for the birthing and rearing of children.”
Your logic is flawed. Since gay people can’t birth children they don’t fall under your traditional meaning/purpose of marriage. So then what about infertile couples? What about those that simply hate kids and refuse to have them? Should they be allowed to get married?
“Protecting traditional marriage protects the little children from ambitious indoctrination they will otherwise receive and at least gives them a better chance to live in a home with a mother and father than will be the case if Prop 8 does not pass.”
It’s not like there is a “shortage” of orphaned children. There is a huge surplus. There are plenty to go around. Besides no matter how anti-gay you are, surely you can’t believe that a child is better off growing up in an orphan home than in a gay one.
Bunch of liberal scum.
One man One woman.
Marriage has never been a civil right, only the pro-gay marriage agenda espouses this idea. The homosexual rights movement has fooled America and successfully attached their social demands to “civil rights”.
The homosexual agenda is about power and control, not civil rights. This proposition may fail in California, but similar propositions continue to pass all around the country. America isn’t fooled this time…
Then why is it that only the lies put forth by Mormon money has swayed public sentiment for the proposition?
Lies put forth by Mormon money? Do your research; Mormons aren’t the largest contributors to Proposition 8. They’re ONE of the contributors.
Sick minds can only think sick thoughts
Don’t forget the Catholic church!
Oh! Catholic Church! My favorite breakfast.
Power and control? Through marriage? lol!!!
Awesome to see you take a stand on an issue like this, Mike, sans lampooning the bandwagoning. It would be funny except that this might actually pass unless people with megaphones start speaking the truth about its blatant and ugly discrimination. Thanks for lending yours.
Tradition should not be set by law – abide by it if you want (and it is not illegal,after all, female circumcision traditional in some place).
Forcing traditions by law has a name: oppression.
To the idiots bringing up the polygamy argument, it’s the typical misleading slight of hand of the conservative right… Polygamy is illegal in the US, last time I checked.
Just because polygamy and gay marriage both involve marriage doesn’t mean they are remotely related or relevant to one another. Our society grants legal rights of partnership to couples, and those rights should be equal regardless of sexual orientation. We don’t grant legal rights of partnership when they involve more than two people, whether it’s three men, one woman and two men, two women and one man, ad infinitum.
Regardless of sexual orientation? Like bestiality, incest and pedophilia? Once lines start moving they never seem to stop.
Because in the minds of so-called Christians, love between two men or two women is just like screwing a dog or forcing sex on one’s child…
Newsflash: We’re talking about the rights of consenting adults.
The words “consenting” and “adult” are key.
Try again.
Whats an adult these days anyway? And consent can be easily manufactured.
What guys, no response to incest? It just shows that your logic only extends so far.
I don’t want to marry my sister, that’s for sure. If others want to, that’s their fight, not mine. But it’s been proven that incest doesn’t pose a greater risk to genetic mutation than any other pairing. What does deteriorate DNA is if you had a clone, or had incest with your clone.
In such a case, I really hope someone like you isn’t cloned, though.
As society progresses, lines should moved to the right places. Lines should NOT be unmovable.
You Daniel Gibbons are an idiot! So polygamy is wrong just because it’s “illegal in the US”? Based on your flawed logic, gay marriage is DEFINITELY wrong just because it is illegal in many US states as well !!!
You are a perfect example of the HYPOCRISY and double standards of the anti-prop 8 crowd.
Gay marriage isn’t illegal.
Yes it is.
Michael, THANK YOU for posting this! It makes me so proud to call Silicon Valley home. I actually just posted on the same topic on my own blog and have gotten some really interesting comments from other people who had a lot more facts than I did (also a right-wing wacko who posted a stock comment, but that’s par for the course).
As far as the polygamy comments go, you can’t use the Muslim beliefs as an argument that “if we allow gay marriage we have to allow polygamy.” The whole point about allowing gay marriage is that we shouldn’t use religious beliefs (in this case often Christian) to define who can create a partnership in a secular state.
It’s discrimination, people. Not threatening your freedom of religion, you’re still free to believe the gays are going to hell. Just not free to legislate that they can’t enjoy their time on earth.
First of, I generally feel that someone’s personal life should remain off the public stage and out of the business community. So, I am going out on a limb here and breaking one of my own rules to reply.
As one of the few gay start-up employees/junkies/founders/followers that I know, let me say that I am actually somewhat divided on this. As someone who was raised as a Southern Baptist, I fully recognize the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. I also recognize marriage as an exclusively religious construct with no place in the law of a truly secular government. The inclusion of a religious ceremony such as marriage in modern law causes exactly these sorts of oppressive, theologically motivated, and emotionally charged pieces of legislation that have NO PLACE in a modern, fair, and equal society.
I would be more comfortable, and feel it would be more equitable, with the removal of the term marriage from all federal and state legislation. As a religious ceremony, the term and tradition of marriage are firmly in the realm of private life and spiritual belief.
This is not to say that governments should not provide recognition and benefits to legally joined couples, but that instead those benefit should apply to “partnerships” and “unions” (which is legally what marriage is) equally across the full spectrum of American citizens. Just as you do not want to be shut out of your wife or husband’s medical care in the event of an emergency, I do not want the same to happen to someone I am with. If MY wages and benefits must be garnished to support your religiously dictated family of eight, then those same programs can also pay for the ONE-PERSON that I am supporting. That is only common human decency and fairness.
To be blunt about it, if these sorts of religiously motivated laws continue to pass, this country will alienate some of the most well educated and affluent portions of its society to the detriment of the country as a whole. It honestly feels as if America is attempting to become a homogeneous, Christian society in response to the perceived prevalence of a “Muslim Threat” throughout the majority of the third and second world countries. In short, we are legislating Christianity because of a small-minded, short sighted, and frightened minority that happens to have a significant lobbying budget due to an ingrained “duty” to tithe. The members of this minority also possess a fear of the repeatedly pontificated “war against Christianity” touted by so many modern preachers as a way to frighten their flock into submission and further their religion’s power agendas. Their fear of the spread of a “hostile” opposing religion and a mostly-unfounded fear of being marginalized in their own country is driving them to further their group goals in a sociologically destructive manner.
I will concede that in recent history, several court cases have gone too far in an attempt to remove all vestiges of Christianity from public places while at the same time establishing the right of smaller/fringe religions to display their tokens and rituals freely in those same venues. I am firmly against that sort of discrimination as well. I guess you could call me “fair-minded” instead of “one-sided.” We should all be equal, so long as no one is being harmed. However, then you get into arguments regarding the definition of harmed.
Oh well, such is life.
I may have rambled, but this is a rambling sort of issue.
Very well said Eric.
Dude you have lots of time in your hands
I agree that a religious word like marriage is not appropriate in the laws of a multi-cultural secular society. Existing law was written when Christians dominated the country. These traditional definitions made sense to them and they assumed they would always make sense.
If we are going to have a secular and multi-cultural society then we should truly have a wall between church and state. The state must not use religious terms like sin, grace, blessing, priesthood, salvation, or marriage. If the state wants to encourage couples to form long term partnerships or wants to have a shorthand for these types of contracts then it will need to find a word besides marriage.
Every religion should be free to define marriage between consenting adults without concern for the state. If a church wants to only allow heterosexual couples to marry then they have that right. If they want to only allow homosexuals, fine too. If they want to allow for polygamy, group marriages, marriages with the deceased, etc. then that is up to them. These marriages should have no impact on the legal status of the participants.
If there we no danger of civil action against religions over their beliefs then this proposition would be very unlikely to pass. As it stands there is reason to believe that civil suits will be brought against religions for not performing same-sex marriages. Religious groups can’t count on the separation of church and state to protect them completely from these lawsuits.
Everyone should go to the courthouse and register their civil contract. Then, if they want, go to their place of worship and perform their marriage ceremony. This is how it works in other countries and it makes sense.
Prop 8 does not do this, but given the likelihood of civil lawsuits against religions we should vote Yes, retain the expected legal environment until the better solution is available. Voting No will lead to random results as a consequence of civil action.
Jon
Your arguments are right, but your conclusion is not. Until the better solution is available, let people have their rights. Then, let the religious groups fight for the true separation of church and state. Anyway, if religious marriage and legal marriage are now linked, the religious groups are the ones to blame.
why isn’t larry page on that list???
Techcrunch becomes Leftcrunch. Post your left wing political views here and call your tech readers who disagree with you bigots.
Bigot
stop eating the little rocks you find up that dark tunnel
. It may look like chocolate but it is not 
For arguments sake let us assume Mike was Gay or pro Gay. What does that have to do with he having the best tech blog? As long as a minority does not try to push a non civil right view on the majority all is well.
This is not the same as black versus white. Such a comparison is 100% deception. You choose to dig or have your anus dug out for pleasure, you were never born that way.
What does your pleasures have to do with Marriage? you are just a freak that’s all. Live with it.
huh. a couple of week ago I was a right wing nut job.
http://www.tech...conomic-crisis/
Mike stop trying to explain yourself. You are clearly for the valley, and no on prop 8. If not say so or simply STFU
Funny huh?
Next thing you know, some nutjob will spread rumors you were gay and sided with the gay agenda. Or wait… did someone already do that?
Yeap! Jagermeister is my favorite juice! Problem is that I don’t remember anything I do… including comments on TC!
I need a joint…
I’m voting YES on 8 because the Freedom of Religion is the first right protected in the Bill of Rights and historically any state that legalizes gay marriage immediately begins stepping on religion’s toes. Don’t confuse rights and privileges. Don’t allow pastors to be sued for refusing to marry same-sex couples. Don’t allow photographers to be sued for refusing to shoot gay weddings.
Tolerance is a two-way street.
How does this take away your freedom of religion? You still have that.
Gay marriage is the only form of marriage recognized by my religion. If Prop 8 is passed my first amendment rights will be violated.
Uh, no. If prop 8 passed, you would be happy. If prop 8 *didn’t* pass, you feel your rights are violated.
Since you think it’s a two-way street, then think of gays who want to get married. *You* are forcing *your* beliefs and *your* religion onto those who love each other and don’t believe the same that you do.
It is, a two-way street, but gays aren’t taking your rights away. See, your right to *think* gay marriage is abominable is still yours, even if prop 8 didn’t pass.
But two gays no longer have the right to marry if prop 8 passed.
Two-way street? Yes. Think about it.
I’m voting NO on 8 becasue I don’t want Mormon money out of Utah to define what marriage means in California.
And I don’t want any church to have to leave California because they are forced into a gay marriage standoff with the state.
And I REALLY don’t want my kids being taught homosexual sex education by the state, either.
Do your research. Mormons aren’t the primary contributors to Prop 8. There are Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, Muslims, Jews, etc. all contributing to the cause. Heck, there are even Feminists contributing! Gasp!
So it’s all church people trying to ram their values down our throats. A bunch of busybodies.
@KC
Aren’t you being a little intolerant of the Mormon church? Hypocrite
Civil War on Techcrunch Today!
Civil war in deed. Sure will if the mulatto wins the Presidential elections. Not so much because he is half breed thus mulatto but he has no economic plan and his Utopian load of crap.
http://proposition8.net
So the valley thinks Obama boy will win. Hmmm, maybe it is true. OBAMA = The Anti Christ.
One will come and woo the masses, charm world leaders, and plunge the earth into chaos
Sounds quite familiar. Then again that stuff is fiction so who gives a shiit.
OK vote for the old bald headed white guy with the sexy VP as his running mate.
Welcome to the world. The new world order or is the old world order?
why do you use smiley faces?
Because I find this shiitt to be so funny. Also for you to think why. Thus it is for you to read between the lines and come away with your own warped interpretation
I just think you’re an idiot
Look, I have female and male lovers, sometimes, at once, but I do not consider myself gay, just Open minded. And open-legged… nothing wrong with it. Be happy, be free, be vegetarian. Peace!
Hey! I didn’t write that! Well…whatever.
Dude you have some serious issues. You screw men and women and do not think you are gay? Dam
While those companies are based in the Mercury News’ service area, I’m fairly sure that the majority of the people in that region are already prone to voting no. It would do a lot more good to take out this ad somewhere in the Central Valley – one or all of the Bees perhaps (Fresno, Modesto, Sacramento).
Hey, now would be a perfect time for a massive boycott of Yahoo and Google by Right wing Californians.
Hmmm, not a bad idea after all. Then a new entrant portal serving the right wing needs. hmmm. Fragmentation may be in progress.
Mike you are a fcucking genius as usual.
Thank God for once Techcrunch posts an item that is worthy of the attention and a chance for people to vote NO on this lame prop.
Hey the Mayan calender says in 2012 the world will end. That sucks, as it means that we will not be able to see FIFA 2014 World Cup. Lets hope it ain’t so
It’s tech related news, so it’s on techcrunch. What’s so hard to understand on this?
Thanks for posting this Michael…. it’s necessary to know that prop 8 is pro-active discrimination under the guise of protecting marriage.
First Google, then Apple, PG&E, Levis, now opposition from eBay, Yahoo, Cisco, Adobe, and more… this is fantastic.
The New York Times and every major California newspaper is against the Proposition from the L.A. Times to the OC Register to the SD Union Tribune. As well as Jerry Sanders, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Antonio Villaraigosa, Lee Baca, Fabian Nuñez… and many more.
Even Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said officially put his stance as NO on Prop 8 and has said that an attempt to ban same-sex marriage by changing the state Constitution is a “total waste of time.”
Stuart
More gays, less people in the world… you decide
This is so gay!
Why is it so hard to see that same sex goes against genetics and evolution? How come animals aren’t homosexual?
Beyond all of that. This country was founded on principals that are no longer valued.
I could care less who puts there name on this. It doesn’t make sense. and it’s not natural.
so you mean you care (”I could care less”).
Some animals are homosexual.
http://news.nat..._gayanimal.html
The article to not prove that. Plus dogs, male dogs who hump make dogs only do so until they have the option of a bitch.
Once the bitch is in heat and that male dog gets his first piece he will fight to the death for another taste of that bitch.
Leaving the bruised female home (dick taking male dog) to rest his anus.
I actually witnessed this at a house with 5 make dogs. The rape stopped when they found a way to jump the fence and when the bitch was able to enter the yard through the gate as she was very tiny.
How about you go to search result #4 on your google search and check out the link http://www.nart...animalmyth.html
Anyone can google. Good for you.
Joe, wow, I never knew NARTH.com existed. Thank Allah I learned something today. Narth vs. Nat Geo (itself a very conversative family ownership). That’s the funniest site I think I’ve ever seen in a week.
@anti matter – My dog humps my leg, does that make him into bestaility? Is there an AARfTH for that too?
Antje, do you support bestiality? What are your views on a man fucking a dog? If this is done in the privacy of the man’s home, do you think it’s OK? Let’s hear your views please.
Oh my Joe. The point was that the dog isn’t a CONSENTING ADULT so the argument is not linear, nor even parallel. It has no relevance to Prop 8. And even less to do with your stilted belief that homosexuals are “not natural”.
Anyway, your vote has been cancelled out by my vote.
Wait a minute… my dog IS a consenting adult — DOG — I can tell: he is humping my butt now! Hmmmmmm good.
@anti matter – My dog humps my leg, does that make him into bestaility? Is there an AARfTH for that too?
Dude if the dog sticks dick in your mouth and you suck it well you can pull a Bill Clinton. It may not be sex.
But if the dog sticks his dick up your ass and humps you they yes the dog is fucking you. If you return the favour then that would not make you gay but something else and as such would need maybe Prop 23 to help you live a fuller life with your dog.
If you have no other relevant questions STFU
Btw, I love the Typography of that poster.
Thanks for taking a stand Mike.
Glenn
A stand for what?
NO on 8 means that my religious freedoms are imposed on. That I have no right to say that I can’t artificially inseminate a lesbian couple based on that fact even though it goes against my Religious freedoms.
On top of that an Adoption agency has no right if it passes to say who can adopt. Catholic ministries in Mass. where affected by the law there.
So either way you look at it.
People’s rights will be taken away.
artificially inseminate a lesbian couple?
To say “no” on Proposition 8 in the tech community is like posting an anti-Microsoft post on Slashdot. Regardless of opinion, it is a safe stand considering the audience.