My employer is SO FUCKING COOL: "No on Prop 8"

[jbailey]

Hey - I usually have a personal policy of not talking about my current employer on my blog. It's why I didn't join Planet Ubuntu until after I'd left Canonical, for instance. This blog isn't theirs. I can promise you that no PR department I've ever worked for has approved the gratuitous overuse of the word "fuck".

But FUCK, this is cool: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html

My readers might remember that Angie and I spent a bunch of time writing letters to my Member of Parliament back in Canada in support of gay marriage, donated to egale, attended a church that got intervener status in support of gay marriage, and ultimately attended the senate debates where equal marriage became the law of the land.

And then, a year ago, we moved to this place. A place where this is still considered an issue. A place where people are willing to do what would never be considered back at home: They're willing to take away the rights that people have and are exercising to marry their partner of choice. And I don't have a voice. As a non-citizen, I can't sign a petition, I can't donate money to political campaigns, and I have no representative to contact and inform how important this is to me.

I was pleased to learn this afternoon that Google has decided to publicly make a stand for the rights of people in California. It's just one more thing that makes this the coolest job I've ever had.

Comments

[jbailey.livejournal.com]

(Second half...)

3) The Rights for everyone.

I want to direct you, initially, to a quote from former Prime Minister Paul Martin in his support for bill C-38:

The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.

If, at the moment, marriage is considered to be about love, about a commitment to another person, about the joy of forming a family together and all the ups and downs that that entails, how do we consider it to be equal that some marriages and unions are granted legal rights to which others do not have access? This is about the right to see your loved one in the hospital, about having access to health care, about having the relationship recognised and blessed by all around you without any stray adjectives attached. This is why I try to refer to this as "equal marriage". I am not in a same-sex marriage. I *am* in an "equal marriage". Others around me should be permitted to have the same "equal marriage", with all rights and responsibilities therein.

Let's consider that at the moment in California, equal marriage is *already* the law of the land. So to your phrase, "Equality has already been achieved": In California, I hearily agree. Why is it that we're willing to see that broken and have rights taken away?

4) The argument could be used to support various other unions.

While interesting, this isn't the conversation we're actually having. Lawyers will draft up the language that specifies it. Courts will make the interpretations of the law. Our job as reasoned people is to have the conversations around feelings and beliefs. You know what's meant by the argument, don't change the subject.

[jamnastic34.livejournal.com]

Thanks for taking the time to reply, it was a good response, although I don't agree with everything said.
"Our job as reasoned people is to have the conversations around feelings and beliefs" if that's case than my I state that I feel uncomfortable about changing the definition of marriage from the traditional American one, and that I believe it will prove counter productive in society?

[jbailey.livejournal.com]

Yup, absolutely. =) Respectful disagreements on principal are always okay, since those can't be meaningfully debated.

I suspect we both wish the maximum happiness on the maximum number of people, and may the voters have the collective wisdom to find that solution.