- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
Google urges voters: Trash traditional marriage
Posted By Bob Unruh On 09/29/2008 @ 8:45 pm In Front Page | Comments Disabled
Google, the Internet search behemoth, is urging Californians to trash traditional marriage with a new website statement that campaigns against a state constitutional amendment proposal that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Voters in 2000 approved, with support from 61.4 percent of the people, the traditional definition. But it was summarily thrown out in May by the state Supreme Court in an opinion written by Judge Ron George, who said “an individual’s sexual orientation … like a person’s race or gender … does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”
More than a million Californians signed a petition to put the same definition into the state constitution, a move that would take it further than the state law approved in 2000 and beyond the reach of activist judges. The amendment proposal has been approved for the 2008 election ballot. Google, however, says the judges were right to disregard the will of California voters on the issue and create “marriage” for same-sex duos.
“It is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8,” said the statement, posted on the blog by Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder and president of technology. “While we respect the strongly held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality.
“We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 – we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love,” Brin continued.
The corporation, in an e-mail signed “SG,” said, “We are opposed to Proposition 8 because it will remove the existing right of Googlers in California to marry the person they love.”
But the company refused to respond to WND questions about whether Google supports other alternative lifestyles besides same-sex duos. By endorsing the status quo in California and opposing the amendment, the company appeared to endorse only “couples” made up of one man and one woman or of two individuals of the same sex, disregarding any “rights” belonging to other alternatives.
That issue was raised in a dissent in the state Supreme Court in May, when Judge Marvin Baxter condemned the majority for its “legal jujitsu” that “oversteps judiciary power.”
L to R: Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Ron M. George participated in the majority opinion declaring a one-man-one-woman limit to marriage unconstitutional. Ming W. Chin, Marvin R. Baxter and Carol A. Corrigan of the California Supreme Court filed dissents
At that time, Baxter raised warnings about the chaos that can be expected because of the social activism on the part of the majority.
“The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy,” he wrote. “Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.
“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?” Baxter warned.
Brin said his company “has a great diversity of people and opinions – Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay,” so it doesn’t usually take a position on social issues.
He said there were many objections to the marriage amendment proposal over government encroachment on personal lives and “ambiguously written text.”
“Google should focus on technology instead of warring against marriage and family values held by the majority of people worldwide,” said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law. “Marriage between a man and a woman is the norm throughout the world. Google executives should be searching for ways to make the Internet more usable rather than promoting a radical redefinition of marriage.
“Companies that promoted anti-family policies have learned the hard way that such policies are bankrupt,” Staver continued. “K-Mart learned its lesson several years ago. Washington Mutual and Wachovia, both of which actively promoted the homosexual agenda, have come to realize that anti-family policies will bankrupt the bottom line.”
Liberty Counsel said it predicts Google also will hear objections from the public.
“Many traditional marriage supporters and pro-family groups will be ‘googling’ for alternative search engines,” the group’s statement said. “The search engine, www.goodsearch.com, gives half of its advertising revenue to charities designated by people using the search engine.
“Google is not the only search engine available to consumers,” the statement said.
Proposition 8, as WND reported, is a voter-led ballot initiative seeking to legally define marriage as only between one man and one woman in the state’s constitution, following a 4-3 California Supreme Court ruling in May that declared the state’s law excluding homosexual marriage to be unconstitutional.
Concerned Women for America said the Supreme Court opinion which the initiative is trying to overturn was a “sweeping decision can be transported nationwide by homosexual couples demanding that other states recognize their California ‘marriage.’”
At the Campaign for Children and Families, spokesman Randy Thomasson said, “Californians who know marriage is exclusively for a man and a woman, a husband and wife, should plan now to vote to override the judges.”
Steve Crampton, also of Liberty Counsel, earlier warned that under the Supreme Court’s wording, polygamy is unstoppable. In a commentary on WND, he wrote: “Although much ink has been spilled over the California Supreme Court decision last month legalizing same-sex marriage, hardly a word has been said about one of its most pernicious and immediate effects: It legitimizes polygamy.”
He said the state Supreme Court’s ruling fails to mention civil unions, but the state already grants “rights” for domestic partnerships:
Accordingly, same-sex couples who first obtain civil unions from, say, Vermont, will soon be allowed to travel to California and enter into marriage – either with or without their civil union partner. Thus, Arnold and Bill might be united in a Vermont civil union, but in California, Arnold may enter into marriage with Cullen, even while the civil union is still in effect. And before his “marriage,” Cullen could have united in a civil union with Dan.
It gets worse. At the same time as these males are coupling, female same-sex couples could have been undertaking similar unions. Ellen may be in a civil union with Feona, and Feona could nonetheless marry Gigi. Gigi may have had a previously conferred civil union with Heidi.
As if all of that were not enough, under California law as twisted by the state Supreme Court, Heidi could marry Dan, and Ellen could marry Bill, thus completing a circle of “love” among eight individuals, four male and four female, all of whom would have arguable legal rights to all the property owned by any one of them – no matter what state the property is in.
“If this isn’t a recipe for disaster, then California is no longer the land of fruits and nuts,” he wrote.
This fall’s campaign is led by the ProtectMarriage.com organization.
The amendment reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2008/09/76555/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.