The primary argument for gay "marriage" seems to be equal rights for both gay couples and married couples. Another key argument I keep hearing is to "keep government out of the bedroom."
Couldn't both of those goals be accomplished without getting into a cultural war over the term "marriage"?
If "civil unions" are legislated to having the same rights as marriage - then that solves the equality problem.
Also, "civil unions" can have a much looser definition. So if there is a threesome of men that really love each other and want to make a life commitment to each other and have equal rights as a married couple, they could do so. However, with gay "marriage" that would not be possible unless it also included plural marriage - and given our nation's history that's pretty unlikely.
"Civil Unions" just seem to be much more flexible in preserving rights of people in minority situations. Even for non-homosexuals. I had good friends who were cousins in their 50's and had lived together non-sexually for over 30 years. They were inseparable and they shared all their resources. When one of them had a brain tumor and was in the hospital, fortunately because they lived in Germany, it was no issue, but if they had lived in the US, there would have been issues with visiting, etc from what I hear. For them "marriage" would not be something they wanted obviously, but it would have made their lives much easier in many situations if they could have had a "civil union".
So, I'm all for having equal rights and government out of the bedroom, but gay marriage just doesn't seem to be the right solution for those two goals. 1) It leaves out other very legitimate situations where companions - either non-sexual or plural arrangements would not have equal rights, and 2) it starts a divisive cultural war that could be avoided. Peace and love right?
If Google has nothing to do with AIDS orphans in Africa - that's their choice. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Bono, etc would normally have "nothing to do with AIDS orphans in Africa", yet they have chosen to.
Wow, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Seriously, great points. On a lighter note - I guess if we can get more AIDS orphans to work at Google, it would shift priorities ;)
You may notice that this letter is not to a private citizen working with their own resources - it's to one of the wealthiest individuals leading one of the wealthiest companies in the world. A company that is not primarily owned by him, but by investors all over the world. This is about using Google - a multi-national giant funded by the investments of others to take a large risk alienating users to help a cause that already has wealthy and vocal advocates. Big risk with other people's resources and little potential upside for those people - doesn't seem like a great idea.
Great point. Someone like me could come along to anything good someone is trying to do and say "Hey, what about the orphans!" You do have to start where you can and with what you have - and doing one thing doesn't mean you can't do another later.
Sergey holds a special place in the world since he is one of the wealthiest ($15+ billion) and holds major control over one of the wealthiest companies in the world ($135+ billion - more than even Coca Cola). Most of us would say that places considerably more responsibility in his hands when it comes to taking on world problems. Just a sliver of his wealth can change the lives of millions.
So the letter really is an attempt at a wake-up call for Sergey. The homosexual marriage movement is wealthy, well-supported, and has a very loud megahorn. Using a public company to support a divisive political measure for already wealthy and vocal adults when there are children languishing elsewhere without a voice, just seems like a misplacement of Google's power.
Yeah, my point is not that there's anything wrong with being edgy or allocating brand for some public good. Look at Bono and the One campaign for example.
The point is that Sergey has many "public good" issues to choose from. Some issues will have far greater impact on relieving suffering in this world - especially for those who have little or no voice themselves. Some issues will have a much smaller impact, especially for those who already have a lot of power and are wealthy and very vocal about their issues. Some issues will be very divisive among Google shareholders and users. Some issues will be very uniting.
It's really a matter of choosing what to do with your resources - and Google is a public company now - not a privately owned company by Larry and Sergey. Employees and shareholders are on both sides of this issue - what may be 'obviously the right thing to do' for some of his shareholders is 'obviously the wrong thing to do' for others. This is a divisive move for his company on an issue trying to help already very powerful and wealthy advocates. To spend brand capital so heavily and unilaterally like this when you could be doing so much good elsewhere and at the same time build unity among shareholders and strengthen your brand - just seems like a poor decision.
You're surely aware of how divisive this issue is by just looking at the polling on this matter. By taking a hard stand on a very divisive issue on behalf of your whole company, you are spending an enormous amount of your Google brand and influence on this issue. Right?
According to gaydemographics.org, there are less than 100,000 gay couples in California. Let's assume all of them want to get married. Let's also assume, which I think is reasonable, that those gay couples wanting to get married are already cohabiting, have plenty of food, have shelter, have access to world class health care etc - and after this huge expenditure of Google influence and brand change, that will be the same - but they might have a marriage certificate.
So, I just wonder why you chose that issue over this issue - that of AIDS orphans in Africa (unfortunately that label often hides the fact that these are real living breathing children). According to one.org, there are 12 million children who have lost BOTH parents to AIDS and are on their own now. This is a rapidly growing problem and there are estimated to be 25 million AIDS orphans by 2010. The sheer scale of this disaster is mind-boggling - yet it's mostly an information problem that needs to be solved. These children need parents. There are many couples around the world that are eager for children. Who better than Google to find a solution? For many of these children, adoption would mean hope where now there is only despair. As impactful as a marriage certificate would be to 100,000 gay couples in one of the richest states of the richest country - I'm guessing an adoption certificate would be tremendously more valuable to these children who are truly destitute. And I'm also guessing this would be much more inspirational and unifying to Google's share-holders and users.
I can understand the draw to be edgy and controversial, but sometimes the causes which are most worthy also are the least popular. I applaud the work the Google Foundation is doing, don't get me wrong - but please consider the costs vs benefits to Google in working towards these two pieces of paper I mentioned: the gay marriage license for wealthy westerners or the adoption certificate for a destitute, yet living breathing child who has lost both parents in Africa.
Couldn't both of those goals be accomplished without getting into a cultural war over the term "marriage"?
If "civil unions" are legislated to having the same rights as marriage - then that solves the equality problem.
Also, "civil unions" can have a much looser definition. So if there is a threesome of men that really love each other and want to make a life commitment to each other and have equal rights as a married couple, they could do so. However, with gay "marriage" that would not be possible unless it also included plural marriage - and given our nation's history that's pretty unlikely.
"Civil Unions" just seem to be much more flexible in preserving rights of people in minority situations. Even for non-homosexuals. I had good friends who were cousins in their 50's and had lived together non-sexually for over 30 years. They were inseparable and they shared all their resources. When one of them had a brain tumor and was in the hospital, fortunately because they lived in Germany, it was no issue, but if they had lived in the US, there would have been issues with visiting, etc from what I hear. For them "marriage" would not be something they wanted obviously, but it would have made their lives much easier in many situations if they could have had a "civil union".
So, I'm all for having equal rights and government out of the bedroom, but gay marriage just doesn't seem to be the right solution for those two goals. 1) It leaves out other very legitimate situations where companions - either non-sexual or plural arrangements would not have equal rights, and 2) it starts a divisive cultural war that could be avoided. Peace and love right?