Industry Trends

Google Takes A Pro-Gay Stance On Proposition 8

By September 30, 200815 Comments

Google, as a company, tends not to take sides on matters not concerning their domain; i.e. issues other than those related to information access, technology and energy. However, they made an exception to this rule and have spoken out against the constitutional amendment banning the marriage between individuals of the same sex.

The reason for their normally hands-off approach could be that Google has a great variety of people in its work force, and they would obviously not like to have to take sides on social issues such as political alignment and religion, as making a stand could disturb the equilibrium in the workplace.
Any form of discrimination, especially against their employees, is something Google will not stand for, and the company has therefore decided to take a stance on this issue and oppose it.

Proposition 8 is an amendment to the California constitution that will take away the right of gays and lesbians to marry. The bill will be up for ballot in November this year.

If this amendment is passed, it will tantamount to discrimination against gay individuals. Google has a number of gays and lesbians in its work force whom they wish to protect from discrimination. As one individual rightly said, “It is the duty of the majority to protect the rights of the minority”.

While the founders did not wish to hurt the feelings of people on either side of the fence, they believe that it is the fundamental right of people to decide whom they wish to marry, irrespective of whether it is a person of the same or opposite sex. Co-founder Sergey Brin said, “it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8.”

Hopefully the electorate in California will prove that they are a cut above the uneducated rednecks that form the majority in the socially backward nation that is the U.S.A.


  • Robert R. says:

    Would they/you be upset to see the “rights taken away” of a father to marry his son or daughter?…and why? Or a man and his horse, or Me 40 yrs to marry your child? There is a line of distinction and it isn’t determined by current politically correct whims.
    Right is right and wrong is wrong.

  • AccuraCast says:

    True. And you, Robert, are very, very wrong.

  • AkashicBadger says:

    And inhumane is inhuman… you sir are inhuman… therefore Proposition 8 will end your love life if it passes.


  • Farhad says:

    Luckily we are not subject to the mindless laws that govern the bible-bashing retards that form the USA.

    Perhaps Google should relocate HQ to the UK where people think on the same human wavelength and aren’t still in awe of the falseities of American religion.

  • Elizabeth says:

    Robert has a point. To label someone as a “bible-bashing retard” is an intellectually bankrupt comment to prevent real discussion. you don’t know Robert and you don’t know me. please be civil (pun intended). gay unions/marriage is not about liberal or conservative values. many notable gays and lesbians disagree on the value of unions. sociologists and anthropologists know the history. out of 86 cultures over 5,000 years none have survived three generations after being sexually permissive. there are grave consequences. i understand lgbt group want to be seen as “mainstream” but this is not an area for that; not even mentioning that gays marrying would still not be an equivalent to heterosexuals. look at the netherlands. average union is 1.5 years w/ 8 lovers on the side for each partner. and in nordland, a very pro-gay community, 80% of women giving birth for the first time are out of wedlock. the scandinavien message becomes clear, when procreation is taken out of the context of marriage, illegitamacy [sic] increases; “marriage is outdated”. the soviets tried this by down playing marriage and it was a flop. they realized a child really did need one mommy and one daddy. hemming bech, a gay sociologist, sees “gay unions” as a good “tactic” but rejects common proponents of gay ideology for unions. basically, the research doesn’t support gay union reasonings.

  • AccuraCast says:

    @Elizabeth Please cite sources when you state numbers and expect them to be treated as fact.

    Also note that we do not encourage any sort of discriminatory discussion, so if Robert or you have an opinion that sexual orientation is a legitimate reason to discriminate against someone, you can take that opinion elsewhere, no matter what poor justification you may cite to base that discimination on.

    Your ilk is not welcome here. Period.

  • David says:

    ROFL!!!…Elizabeth nailed you with intellectual discussion and all you could try to do was respond with, be quiet because I don’t like it? Wow…. that has got to me the absolutely lamest response I have ever seen to anything! Lol…

    A “mis”quote comes to mind:

    “overeducated rednecks that form the minority in the mentally bankrupt nation that is the U.S.A”

    By the way, Prop 8 passed the way I read it. The electorate in CA proved they are a cut above the extremist few who wish to take an alternative lifestyle and push it on my children. That I DO have a right to stand up and fight for. And will.

  • Anti Prop 8 says:

    It’s interesting to see that Americans think they still have the right to curb the rights of others just because they’re in the majority. Mob rule?

  • Pro Prop 8 says:

    There has always been and will always be the restriction of some “rights” for the broader well-being of all. Ever seen a speed-limit?

    Those advocating gay marriages are in the very minority (albeit very vocal as well), but do not coincide with the purposes of the establishment of the United States of America.

    Fortunately, there are various places on earth that allow any sort of right you may be after and America has an open borders policy (unlike some nations) so you can leave and go exercise your right there any time you please.

  • Anti Prop 8 says:

    Speed limits were made to prevent deaths due to road accidents. If gay marriage killed people, I’m sure there would be laws against it.

    As for your children, if their health is affected by seeing two men marry, they need to be institutionalised. Though, again, given your attitude, they probably will need therapy anyway.

  • Pro Prop 8 says:

    Lol…well, either way…it is what it is. There are laws against many things that don’t kill people – surely you know that. And there probably wouldn’t be a law against it if no one wanted to do it.

    Your opinion is your opinion. I might quip that you need to be institutionalized and need therapy. That would be the opinion of a lot of other people.

  • accu-puncture says:

    Wow what a touchy subject. Given the aggression of the people who support gay marriage, it takes A LOT of b#!!s to oppose gay marriage and speak out about it. Even in states where gay marriage is legal – there is a lot of aggression because the gay committee is not satisfied just as of yet. The 100% freedom has yet to be achieved – legalized bestiality – and pedophilia to name a few. … So it is going to be awhile before the gay community is ever going to be happy. Just get ready to hear even more yelling from the gay community. The guy with the stupid hearing aid in his ear – yeah the one that went along with the gay voting support – he learned his lesson after he found out what it was all about.

    Edit: Ignorant, hateful text deleted.

  • Moshe Martian says:

    Google is ran by homosexuals, so of course they back themselves. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others know that homosexuality is perversion. Nature shows us that homosexuality is perversion.

    Edit: Offensive language deleted