Official Google Blog takes stance against CA’s Proposition 8
September 27th, 2008 [Civil Rights, General, Marriage Equality, News, Web]
2 Comments »Official Google Blog: Our position on California’s No on 8 campaign.
Sticking to their corporate motto: Don’t Be Evil.
Thanks, Google!
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
An Open Letter to Sergey Brin:
I just want you to know that the attack on Prop 8 you published in your corporate blog today was just too much. I know you don’t care, but you need to know this matters. I’ll never use Google again as my search engine. I’m removing all traces of Google from my computers, including the Google Desktop.
First of all, Prop 8 only seeks to restore the traditional definition of marriage which the voters approved in 2000 by over 60% with their vote on Prop 22, but which the California State Supreme Court improperly took away from us this past June. They never actually approved gay marriage. They didn’t have the right to do so because, according to the California State Constitution, only the Legislature has the right to pass laws. What the Supreme Court did do was find unconstitutional some individual statutes that were revised by Proposition 22. Their decision left a number of regulations and statutes still in state law which, if they had really meant to ‘approve’ gay marriage and this effort had been done correctly, would also have had to be revised. But they couldn’t do that because they are not the state’s law-making body and we have a very strict separation of powers here in California. In other words, ‘approving’ gay marriage can only legally be done either by the California State Legislature or by a vote of the electorate through a ballot initiative, not by the State Supreme Court. They don’t get to make law, which their decision improperly and incompletely attempted to do.
Second, you vastly underestimate the tremendous support for traditional marriage in this city. A couple months ago, within 24 hours of the announcement of so-called ‘boycott’ of the Manchester Hyatt Regency Hotel by a gay group that had been planning a demonstration for weeks because the owner of the hotel had donated money to support Proposition 8, proponents of Prop. 8 had gathered an equal number of supporters across the street to correct the misunderstandings about the ballot proposition that the other side was trying to spread.
In particular, you failed to mention that in the State of California, male-female couples can no longer be married as bride and groom. Not only do they have to fill out the marriage license form that now calls them “Party A” and “Party B,” but they can’t even have their marriage recorded with the State Office of Vital Records as Bride and Groom. How dumb is that?
Most people are completely shocked to learn that a man and woman wishing to marry officially as husband and wife in California now are now forced to marry in some other state. Last month a couple in Placer County wrote “Bride” and “Groom” next to “Party A” and “Party B” on their marriage license form and it was rejected by the Office of Vital Records. To have their marriage recorded officially as bride and groom, they would have had to get married in some other state! That’s just plain ridiculous! Couples should be able to marry has bride and groom if they want! A ‘Yes’ vote on Prop 8 would reverse this and allow couples to once again be married as husband and wife.
What’s next? Gender-neutral birth certificates? This has just plain gone too far. A ‘yes’ vote on Proposition 8 will simply restore the traditional view of marriage most Californians respect and want without reversing the gains in appropriate rights provided to gay couples by existing domestic partnership laws.
I challenge you to open up your blog to feedback from the public, RIGHT THERE, beneath the blog. Allow us to comment right there. I dare you to really hear what people think about your stand on this issue. You seemingly only want to hear from those who agree with you! How dumb is that? And the fact that you have no way for people to really respond is so typical of Google.
Karen Grube
PS. By the way, the AFA did recommend a search engine which I will begin using: it’s called GoodSearch.com
September 29th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Karen, if you really believe Prop 22 was representative of the will of the people of CA, I suggest you read my article, “Five Myths About Same Sex Marriage,” in which I dispel much of the unwarranted hype circulating the passage of that proposition. The outcome of that vote wasn’t quite as cut and dry as people think it was, and when people use Prop 22 to support their stance against marriage equality, it really tells me that they don’t know much about that election.
In any event, it doesn’t really matter that Prop 22 passed, because if you read the court decision, you would know that the Court struck it down as it was in violation of the CA constitution. You are incorrect in stating that the Court has no power to rule on this issue. You are also incorrect in stating that the legislature does have the power to rule on this issue. In fact, the legislature voted TWICE to legalize same-gender marriage in California. The governor vetoed the bills because in this particular situation, where the ballot initiative created the law, ONLY the court – and NOT the legislature – has the power to strike it down. This is because ONLY the court has the ultimate authority to interpret the California constitution, and Prop 22 was in direct violation of the California constitution. Your willingness to flippantly resort to constitutional amendments following that decision only reveals your lack of respect for this great document that governs our state. It protects all Californians precisely so that the majority of Californians cannot strip citizens of their rights.
By the way, what do you think about the fact that parental notifications for minors seeking abortions is once again on the CA ballot? We have voted that down TWICE in the past several years (far more recently than Prop 22), and yet your people are STILL seeking to undermine the will of the people by offering the initiative in increasingly deceptive ways. Why is it okay for you to repeatedly challenge the outcome of an initiative while at the same time rejecting a court decision that has virtually no bearing on your life, but it’s not okay for me to challenge the outcome of a proposition that completely dictates my personal and economic future?