Microsoft calls for Gay Marriage in Washington State(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Microsoft calls for Gay Marriage in Washington State
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/microsoft-calls-for-gay-marriage-in-washington-state/251680/
11 comments
I have no doubt that MS believes in having the best workers possible, regardless of their sexual orientation. I congratulate you for getting a good job.
What I do find interesting is that the Republican Party is becoming more fundamentalist as time and elections go on, especially when both Ballmer and Gates are Republican.
They're not Christian fundamentalists but they do happen to vote that way due to business issues.
What I do find interesting is that the Republican Party is becoming more fundamentalist as time and elections go on, especially when both Ballmer and Gates are Republican.
They're not Christian fundamentalists but they do happen to vote that way due to business issues.
Every election cycle I think, this is the year that the big business/libertarian and social conservative/religious wings of the Republican parties finally break up, but it keeps not happening, though I think it's the dynamic behind the let's-find-a-not-Romney weird surges that have been happening throughout the GOP campaign so far this year. Bizarrely, Gingrich, who has a certain amount of cred in both camps, might be the compromise candidate of both wings, and if he goes down in flames in the general (as he almost certainly would) it could speed that divorce.
On the other hand, the US's first-past-the-post election system makes a multi-party system pretty difficult to maintain, so who knows.
On the other hand, the US's first-past-the-post election system makes a multi-party system pretty difficult to maintain, so who knows.
On the other hand, the US's first-past-the-post election system makes a multi-party system pretty difficult to maintain, so who knows.
The UK has a first-past-the-post system and has maintained a three party system for over one hundred years now. It has largely been between two parties (Labour and Conservative) but the third party (Liberal Democrats) have still been a vocal minority in parliament.
The UK has a first-past-the-post system and has maintained a three party system for over one hundred years now. It has largely been between two parties (Labour and Conservative) but the third party (Liberal Democrats) have still been a vocal minority in parliament.
I don't know about Ballmer, but is Gates a republican? According to [0] he donates more to D than to R, although not by a great margin
[0] http://www.forbes.com/profile/bill-gates/
[0] http://www.forbes.com/profile/bill-gates/
Whether or not Ballmer or Gates are supporters, the Republican Party's shift towards fundamentalism is not supported by all of their base. The number of votes for Ron Paul in the primaries show that there is a sizable base still interested in small government and minimal taxes.
I honestly do believe we'll see a third party (be it Fundamentalist of Libertarian, depending on who 'wins' the Republicans) with a decade or two. The outcome of this coming election (whether Romney wins, and how the party reacts) could be a deciding factor.
I honestly do believe we'll see a third party (be it Fundamentalist of Libertarian, depending on who 'wins' the Republicans) with a decade or two. The outcome of this coming election (whether Romney wins, and how the party reacts) could be a deciding factor.
"shift towards"? The Republican party has been fundamentalist by all but American standards, and I'm not even talking about the more extreme tea party folks. Those are just plain insane.
Sounds like he means fundamentalist in the religious sense. Believe it or not the evolution of the neo-con and American Christianity's attachment of itself to the GOP is a pretty recent development. Not long ago an average Republican was mainly fiscally conservative and the "family values" types were the outliers.
Businesses will vote in their best interests. Both Ballmer and Gates grew up in upper or wealthy middle class. They've always voted Republican.
> I honestly do believe we'll see a third party
Hopefully, but I was a former political junkie and third parties were never elected.
> I honestly do believe we'll see a third party
Hopefully, but I was a former political junkie and third parties were never elected.
The third party of British politics - the Liberal Democrats - are currently in power due to a coalition government, and this is under a FPTP system not a PR system, so coalitions are uncommon.
For a Presidential election a coalition doesn't make sense, but you guys do have other branches of government that could use a bit of a change.
For a Presidential election a coalition doesn't make sense, but you guys do have other branches of government that could use a bit of a change.
I think his point was an honest, sizeable third party, as opposed to the small grass movements of Nader, etc.
I'm not that educated regarding the accuracy of this website but perhaps others can comment on it.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/biography/bill_gates.asp
http://www.campaignmoney.com/biography/bill_gates.asp
Congrats. Hope everything works out for you two.
Congratulations on the new job and new life.
I sincerely wish you the very best with both.
I sincerely wish you the very best with both.
Oh come on - do we need logic arguments to convince people it's the right thing to do?
Why is separate-yet-equal acceptable for any human being?
It's a disgusting, ignorant attitude. Society needs to grow up.
Do detractors think there should be separate water fountains for gays at work too?
Why is separate-yet-equal acceptable for any human being?
It's a disgusting, ignorant attitude. Society needs to grow up.
Do detractors think there should be separate water fountains for gays at work too?
I couldn't work out if I was upset that they were using business as the reason not human rights, or if I was pleased that they had figured out a way to help push for the right thing. Still not sure, really.
If I understand it correctly, history is repeating itself in that some business also helped push for rights in the 1950s, ie. serving everyone at the same lunch counter at some stores even though it was illegal at the time.
The difference is this time at least people aren't being beaten and killed over this (at least not in mass).
But it does not help at all when the President of the United States says that gay rights are okay when they need fresh bodies for the wars to kill and be killed but on gay marriage "well he's still not convinced". It boggles my mind.
The difference is this time at least people aren't being beaten and killed over this (at least not in mass).
But it does not help at all when the President of the United States says that gay rights are okay when they need fresh bodies for the wars to kill and be killed but on gay marriage "well he's still not convinced". It boggles my mind.
The difference is this time at least people aren't being beaten and killed over this (at least not in mass).
No, not in mass. Still lots of people bullied into suicide though.
No, not in mass. Still lots of people bullied into suicide though.
"It boggles my mind."
No it doesn't. You just showed that on the one hand he gets "fresh bodies for the wars to kill and be killed" and on the other he doesn't lose votes.
No it doesn't. You just showed that on the one hand he gets "fresh bodies for the wars to kill and be killed" and on the other he doesn't lose votes.
Framing civil rights in a logical or business argument is the smartest avenue of approach, especially in the US. Moral or human rights arguments can easily be dismissed by religion, but an economic or practical argument?
Plus Microsoft would probably be sued by its shareholders if they didn't give a good, strategic decision for taking an overtly political position.
Plus Microsoft would probably be sued by its shareholders if they didn't give a good, strategic decision for taking an overtly political position.
My first thought when reading the title was similar: "well, what about pushing it just because it's the right thing to do?" (admittedly, the definition of "right" won't be universal…). But you have to remember that it's easier to use economic arguments with politicians.
If Microsoft were to say "we support gay marriage just because", politicians on the other side could just shrug and not take a risky stand for their re-election. By saying that they are having issues hiring top talent Microsoft is hinting that maybe, possibly not allowing gay marriage would mean that they'll be less competitive, thus less money for the state, less jobs, less economic activity, etc. which politicians respond to. Plus it gives politicians arguments to justify themselves: they don't have to then say "well, it's the right thing" and upset some people, but instead "I'm doing it for the economy".
If Microsoft were to say "we support gay marriage just because", politicians on the other side could just shrug and not take a risky stand for their re-election. By saying that they are having issues hiring top talent Microsoft is hinting that maybe, possibly not allowing gay marriage would mean that they'll be less competitive, thus less money for the state, less jobs, less economic activity, etc. which politicians respond to. Plus it gives politicians arguments to justify themselves: they don't have to then say "well, it's the right thing" and upset some people, but instead "I'm doing it for the economy".
It should be noted that Washington does currently provide registered domestic partnerships, which provide nearly all of the legal benefits of marriage. The last expansion of the domestic partnership laws was basically an "everything but marriage" bill. Here are some of the things covered:
Note: I'm not suggesting that this means there is no need for marriage. Just pointing out that Washington is already very gay friendly.
Health care decision making and visitation
Inheritance and other death-related stuff
Spousal immunity in court
Community property
Domestic violence laws apply
Tax breaks on property transfers between the partners
Veteran benefits
Sick leave can be used to care for partner
Adoption, child custody, and child support same as marriage
Note: I'm not suggesting that this means there is no need for marriage. Just pointing out that Washington is already very gay friendly.
so quit with the bs and just let people get married.
Google has been extremely pro gay rights for a while (forever?) and it has worked out quite well for what it seems. Bully for both of them, it's a great move, both as. Company and people with basic humanity.
So has Microsoft, this isn't exactly a new stance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_and_Lesbian_Employees_at_Mi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_and_Lesbian_Employees_at_Mi...
Oh I know, I lived a couple miles from Redmond for most of my life. I just pointed out another large company that had a similar mindset. Sorry if that came off as Microsoft jumping on a bandwagon or anything.
Somewhere, Alan Turing applauds.
Turing's story is especially heartbreaking. Imagine what another 30-40 years of Alan Turing's genius would have done for computation.
Given that Turing was working on morphogenesis towards the end of his life, a life that had already covered computation, code breaking, and artificial intelligence, I think the more interesting question is what would Turing have decided to work on given a few more decades. It might not have been computing.
Global economic meritocracy: the way social conservatism dies.
Socially conservative or otherwise authoritarian societies always find themselves on the losing side of the brain drain equation.
Socially conservative or otherwise authoritarian societies always find themselves on the losing side of the brain drain equation.
Am I the only one that notices this seems to be the case with a lot of tech companies? It seems like most non-tech industries are still full of baby boomers who are far less accepting than the younger generations who make up these types of companies.
Yeah, technology and IT are quite liberal.
I tend to think technology and IT are more pragmatic than liberal, but I believe it doesn't matter anyway - it probably has more to do with the social norms of a generation. Technology and IT are full of young people. There is higher support for gay marriage among the young in Mississippi than among the old in Massachusetts (if I'm remembering that statistic I read correctly). Expect tension over this issue to evaporate as time goes on.
Generally. There are still assholes in every walk of life. Good that they are being challenged more and more and hopefully, eventually their outrageous prejudices will no longer have anywhere left to hide.
I don't know if it's what you said as much as brainwashed religious folk who are scared of change. I find it interesting how one can justify sexual descrimination but not racial, as if you have any say in your genetics. Just listening to Rick Santorum last night made me wodner if he believes in separation of church and state.
I find it interesting how one can justify sexual descrimination but not racial
He's a politician. Racial discrimination is not political acceptable. Sexual Orientation Discrimination is political acceptable in some places.
He's a politician. Racial discrimination is not political acceptable. Sexual Orientation Discrimination is political acceptable in some places.
"Just listening to Rick Santorum last night made me wodner if he believes in separation of church and state."
No. Of course he doesn't. Be very afraid of people like this.
"I find it interesting how one can justify sexual descrimination but not racial"
I think that if you can justify sexual discrimination, scratch just a little below the surface and you'll probably also find a colour bias there as well. Along with a few others. I find prejudices tend to come in sets with a lot of a certain type of person.
No. Of course he doesn't. Be very afraid of people like this.
"I find it interesting how one can justify sexual descrimination but not racial"
I think that if you can justify sexual discrimination, scratch just a little below the surface and you'll probably also find a colour bias there as well. Along with a few others. I find prejudices tend to come in sets with a lot of a certain type of person.
I think this has more to do with being able to offer competitive employment benefits than it does with any kind of social or political philosophy.
Seattle's 13% LBGT population is second only to SF (15%). Attracting talent north is a practical matter.
Seattle's 13% LBGT population is second only to SF (15%). Attracting talent north is a practical matter.
This is great. Discrimination makes me sick to my stomach.
Any "gay marriage" bills should have been argued as "jobs bills". At the very least, by not voting against gay marriage, you are hurting people in the wedding industry (photographers, fashion, bakers, halls, etc).
Never understood why that angle was not brought up against hardcore republican/conservative voters - the type who are usually all "pro jobs/work/smallbusiness" types. Perhaps because it makes sense, and logic/reason isn't typically being employed by people when the "gay marriage" legislation topic floats around.
Never understood why that angle was not brought up against hardcore republican/conservative voters - the type who are usually all "pro jobs/work/smallbusiness" types. Perhaps because it makes sense, and logic/reason isn't typically being employed by people when the "gay marriage" legislation topic floats around.
In 50 years it'll be robosexual marriage. Then 20 years later it'll be gay robosexual marriage (yes, I like my Futurama). I really hope we can get this issue with who-can-marry-who resolved before we get to that point.
Edit: In 70 years these down-votes will be seen as ignorant and intolerant, you apes.
Edit: In 70 years these down-votes will be seen as ignorant and intolerant, you apes.
No, the next thing be polygamy.
(You might reasonably think that is just something delusional fundamentalists cry to make a slippery-slope argument, because it is something they cry to make a slippery-slope argument, but if you hang around the right parts of the world - e.g. certain corners of San Francisco or the Internet - it's not very hard to see that it's at least plausible. The interpretation of the validity or invalidity of these potential developments and society's possible reactions to it are left as an exercise to the reader, however.)
(You might reasonably think that is just something delusional fundamentalists cry to make a slippery-slope argument, because it is something they cry to make a slippery-slope argument, but if you hang around the right parts of the world - e.g. certain corners of San Francisco or the Internet - it's not very hard to see that it's at least plausible. The interpretation of the validity or invalidity of these potential developments and society's possible reactions to it are left as an exercise to the reader, however.)
I really don't understand what's wrong with polygamy. It seems good liberal minded people should support it.
You could perhaps put some reasonable upper bound on the number of people that could enter into such a marriage, so people can't abuse it to form absurdly large tax shelters, but how can anyone justify denying 3 or 4 people the right to be married?
What's so magical about the number 2?
You could perhaps put some reasonable upper bound on the number of people that could enter into such a marriage, so people can't abuse it to form absurdly large tax shelters, but how can anyone justify denying 3 or 4 people the right to be married?
What's so magical about the number 2?
Personally, I have no problem with the idea of polygamy when it's, say, three people from different backgrounds who found themselves in that kind of relationship after meeting in college, or whatever.
It gets tricky when you consider the closed, fundamentalist Mormon sects and similar cult like systems, where polygamy sometimes is wrapped up with sexual abuse of children, etc.
Perhaps, if polygamy were legal, the isolated cultish groups could come out from underground, allowing them to more easily obtain wives from outside the group, which might reduce problems with the kids. But it might be too ingrained at this point.
I'm not sure how best to allow the first case, while not encouraging the persistence of the latter case.
It gets tricky when you consider the closed, fundamentalist Mormon sects and similar cult like systems, where polygamy sometimes is wrapped up with sexual abuse of children, etc.
Perhaps, if polygamy were legal, the isolated cultish groups could come out from underground, allowing them to more easily obtain wives from outside the group, which might reduce problems with the kids. But it might be too ingrained at this point.
I'm not sure how best to allow the first case, while not encouraging the persistence of the latter case.
You're asking a rhetorical question, but I'm going to answer it anyway. Please note that this post is for informative purposes, not normative ones.
The thing which is "magical", to use your term, is the family unit comprised of a mother and a father and their children. The children are exposed to both male and female influences, the combination of which is generally recognized as beneficial to their emotional development. The mother and father both have a stake in the upbringing of the children, without attendant conflicts of interest and jealousy. They may also be incentivized towards caring about future generations, building a better world for their children, and a number of other things.
Without that context of the family unit, there is, in fact, significantly less which can be said to be "magic" about the number 2. Notice that "family" occupies a significant portion of the cultural conversation of religious opposition to marriage-related issues, particularly internally-directed conversation (though the likes of 'god hates <x>' is another significant portion and usually louder / easier to find).
Again, this post is informative, not normative. Judgements on the extent to which any of these matters are desirable, and how much they ought to affect the social validity of a marriage of 3, 4, 5, or more, or marriages between 2 people (heterosexual or otherwise) who are not in the business of having children, or alternative ways to achieve any desirable goal mentioned in the above paragraphs, are once again left as exercises to the reader.
Note also that a pragmatic argument against 3+-person marriages exists, and relates to the fact that these are almost always polygynyous marriages and there may be negative social implications to having many unmarried males around, rendering societies more prone to crime, war, and other things. Again, the extent to which this is true and ought to influence social policy? Figure it out yourself.
The thing which is "magical", to use your term, is the family unit comprised of a mother and a father and their children. The children are exposed to both male and female influences, the combination of which is generally recognized as beneficial to their emotional development. The mother and father both have a stake in the upbringing of the children, without attendant conflicts of interest and jealousy. They may also be incentivized towards caring about future generations, building a better world for their children, and a number of other things.
Without that context of the family unit, there is, in fact, significantly less which can be said to be "magic" about the number 2. Notice that "family" occupies a significant portion of the cultural conversation of religious opposition to marriage-related issues, particularly internally-directed conversation (though the likes of 'god hates <x>' is another significant portion and usually louder / easier to find).
Again, this post is informative, not normative. Judgements on the extent to which any of these matters are desirable, and how much they ought to affect the social validity of a marriage of 3, 4, 5, or more, or marriages between 2 people (heterosexual or otherwise) who are not in the business of having children, or alternative ways to achieve any desirable goal mentioned in the above paragraphs, are once again left as exercises to the reader.
Note also that a pragmatic argument against 3+-person marriages exists, and relates to the fact that these are almost always polygynyous marriages and there may be negative social implications to having many unmarried males around, rendering societies more prone to crime, war, and other things. Again, the extent to which this is true and ought to influence social policy? Figure it out yourself.
I feel the same way. At least their are some practical arguments against polygamy. Still if everyone involved is an adult making their own decision then the government should have almost no control over who marries who.
The general point I was trying to make was that something will succeed this as the next big fight for rights and that it would be related to marriage, so people who oppose these unions should just take the smart exit and stop fighting it.
I'm sure you remember this http://qntm.org/gay
Don't you ever listen to the right wing? The 'next thing' will be people marrying their dogs, then their toasters. It's so obvious where this slippery slope will lead :)
I think a few horror stories of what happens when a man tries to consummate his marriage to a toaster without checking to see if it has been unplugged will de-grease that particular slippery slope.
Microsoft's efforts to create a truly equal workplace and community for me played a significant role on my decision to accept an offer there (note: I don't say this at the exclusion of other companies who make similar efforts).