[NewsPoster]

At least two major high-tech companies have issued statements supporting today's US Supreme Court decisions related to gay marriage, according to AllThingsD. "Apple strongly supports marriage equality and we consider it a civil rights issue. We applaud the Supreme Court for its decisions today," a message from an Apple spokesman reads. HP, meanwhile, is pointing to its history of supporting gay causes. "HP has more than 30 years of partnership with and participation in pride events, and works throughout the year to build and strengthen HP as an organization that values all employees, customers and communities," says Michael Thacker, the global communications chair for HP's Pride Employee Resource Group. "Our sponsorship at San Francisco Pride this year is a great example of how HP is committed to diversity and to creating a flexible, inclusive environment for everyone inside and outside of the company," Thacker's PR concludes.

Apple also has a reputation for supporting gay rights, having long given the same benefits to same-sex couples that it gives to heterosexual ones. And despite normally avoiding political statements, it publicly donated money to the "No on Prop 8" campaign in 2008. One of today's Supreme Court rulings maintains a lower court's rejection of Prop 8, which temporarily banned gay marriage in California.

Other companies are expressing more subdued support for the new developments. Facebook-owned Instagram, for instance, is hosting a collection of celebratory photos on its official blog. Google meanwhile is surrounding its web search box with a rainbow whenever someone searches for "gay," "lesbian," "transgender," or "bisexual."

Earlier in the year a number of Silicon Valley companies filed an amicus brief against the Defense of Marriage Act, which today was ruled unconstitutional. Some of the parties in the brief included Cisco, Facebook, Intel, Qualcomm, and Twitter.

[OldMacGeek]

. . . and thus begins the industry's "Gayer than thou" battles.

[OldMacGeek]

Google - "We were gay first!"

Apple - "Girlfriend - we were gay *way* before it was cool."

[Hillbilly Geek]

Heh

[Mr. Strat]

Legitimization of sexual perversion is not something to be celebrated.

[Flying Meat]

Legitimizing religious dogma in constitutional law is not something to be celebrated.

[jchunter]

Your "perversion" is another person's regular life.That's why the US Constitution prevents religious zealots from turning their personal prejudices into the law of the land. For a view of a country where this is not the case you might want to try Uganda or anywhere under Taliban control.

[LenE]

Nothing from the Supreme Court is ever clear-cut. I think future history will view today's celebrations as irrational exuberance, when these decisions are given the proper close inspections.

That said, I never could figure why the state (or computer or consumer goods company) would want to interfere with a religious bond in the first place, by either licensing marriages (the state) or jumping into this debate (HP & Apple). The act of marriage is a spiritual merger, officiated by a clergy, who just so happens to be deputized by the state to seal the civil merger. The first, a religious tenet, the second, a legal entity.

The First Amendment, or more precisely court cases about the First Amendment separations, should have severed this tie long ago. Prop 8 was driven by the fear that the state would push the definition of the spiritual merger (marriage) into areas that are anathema to various religions. Anyone can get a civil union, but it takes a compatible religion have a marriage. A little over a century ago, this same issue came up for polygamists. In the end, the religion was essentially forced to change, so there is precedent for ignorance of the First Amendment when it comes to religious practices.

[Steve Wilkinson]

So, I wonder if 'marriage equality' will next be extended to the polyamorous, polygamy, etc. communities? It would be a shame to stop at GLBT 'marriage' and be bigoted towards these groups of people who just want the freedom to love each other, right?

I had to chuckle about the company statements over diversity and inclusiveness. Just watch what happens if a GLBT person discovers a Christian or Muslim who holds that their behavior is sinful, and you'll witness what 'diverse' and 'inclusive' really means. I wonder how many 'pro-family' events these companies have also donated to, in their effort to support diversity? (I bet that one will keep you guessing for a long time... hehe.)

@ LenE - Basically, they do need to be separated (religious and state marriage), as even within some religions, more conservative and liberal branches divide on this issue. However, where the State is involved in it, it is SUPPOSED to be as an incentive and protection to support an aspect of society which will ultimately be beneficial to the State's people. This is simply giving in to the spoiled kid to keep them quiet, rather than actually doing the right thing. This move may make a bunch of GLBT folks happy, but it isn't going to make for a better society. Marriage was already horribly damaged by no-fault divorce, this just further weakens it, making it a meaningless thing... which the State is now promoting and we're all paying for. So, now, rather than paying to build a better society, we're paying to make certain people happy. And, like I noted above... just watch where this goes. Once you break the natural definition of marriage and self-define it, it really can be just about anything. It's called a logical slippery slope.... and we're well on our way down it.

[sibeale1]

Of course, at one time the "natural definition" of marriage in most of the US was between people of the same race. Let's move on, folks. If, in the future, there develops a consensus in the country that polygamy is acceptable and a civil right, then the law should and will eventually allow it.

Types of marriage is not a line of progression. Maybe in your mind you view some sort of progression like different sex white > different sex other > different sex, different race > same sex > polygamy, etc. But that's just as bad as the folks who say "if we allow gay marriage, people will want to marry their cat next" It doesn't follow. They're completely separate issues on many levels. It's not a line or slope from one to the next. If you want to debate the merits of polygamy and how it relates to the "institution" of marriage, then be my guest, but it in no way relates to same sex marriages.

The fact is in today's society marriage serves to solidify a family unit between two people with an intimate relationship who wish to carry it on for life. We don't forbid sterile couples from marrying, so you can't use the "natural childbirth" argument. Sterile couples and homosexual couples are capable of adopting and raising children should they wish, and we also don't forbid married couples from abstaining from parenthood. Nothing about marriage absolutely requires opposite sexes in these cases.

The fact is same sex marriage hasn't caused downfall in society in any country, state, province, that has allowed it for years, and there's no reason to believe it will do so in the future. You may argue that no-fault divorce cheapened marriage, but again, but I could also argue being locked into an abusive marriage is even more harmful. But either of which have nothing to do with allowing same sex couples to marry. It's a separate issue, not a progression or slope.

Also, you can go on about the "natural" definition of marriage, but the word "natural" is arbitrary on your part. And "traditional" marriage supporters should take a history lesson - marriage was traditionally a business arrangement between families. The church had nothing to do with it until they co-opted it and pretended they invented the concept.

[Flying Meat]

@LenE
The state is in the business of record keeping (among lots of other stuff...), and one of those pieces of data is "married", which bestows specific benefits.
If there were no difference in treatment with regard to the state AND the legal recognition of otherwise not religiously bound couples' rights for visitation, inheritance, etc, then there would not have been a problem to rule on.
You'll note there is no reference to gender in my statements above, as that is not an issue anywhere but the church.
To be clear, the church is not required to perform same sex marriages (as several hysterical pundits suggested). That too, is fine with me,.. unless they want to receive government funds then, not so much.
Those that don't want to be married to a same sex partner are, of course, free to not do so.

The church already has a "spiritual merger". Holy matrimony. They can keep that. (the Boy Robin gets to say it when appropriate though
The quick check of the old dictionary says this about marriage:
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:
2 a combination or mixture of two or more elements:

Clearly the first definition will need to be changed to "partners" or something whacky like "spousal affiliates". I'm not seeing the reference to spiritual merger, or religious ownership of the term.


With regard to other posters' comments, as far as "celebrations", it seems pretty subdued over all, and I live in a city that has long supported same sex relationships. I also don't begrudge those effected directly, their happiness as it's completely understandable.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by LenE 

That said, I never could figure why the state ... would want to interfere with a religious bond in the first place, by either licensing marriages (the state) ...

The state gets into marriage questions first because marriage conveys citizenship. Marry a citizen, become a citizen (affects rights, passport, tax status). Later you get into property ownership and inheritance, then into state benefits.

[ibugv4]

I'm kind of amazed, yet not really, at the closed-minded comments. Steve Jobs was exceptionally progressive, Apple being one of the first companies to same-sex partner health insurance. But the target market wasn't the progressive and intelligent, it was the Republican closed-minded simpleton. Hence the "Rest of us" tagline used for so many years. No matter the platform, everything you touch with a computer behind it is the legacy of Alan Turing. He was not only gay, and vocal about it, he was chemically castrated by his country (but not killed as he was too valuable having broken Enigma during WWII for the Allies) ... he committed suicide after two years of hormone therapy with a poisoned apple. Some say the bite in Apple's logo is homage to him.

[Spheric Harlot]

The designer of the Apple logo has said that the bite was added to clarify that the logo was not a cherry.