MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

This honestly baffles me... one stop forward (Obama), and one back. At least Apple understands human rights and fairness more than the rest of California. Businesses are kept to strict anti-discrimination laws, why isn't the entire state?

Nov 05, 08 - 02:58 pm Comment from: ericdano

Yup, they will sue, again, and try to FORCE their views on the rest of us.

There are two issues. The legal and the religious. The legal one, I totally support equal rights under the law.

However, calling it marriage is something I don't support. That is where the prop failed.

Will not return money to the share holders but will take the share holders money and give it to a group that has nothing to do with the stock or the market.

Investors did not get a say in this and it was money that belongs to the investors. Steve and Al, give your own money next time!

Companies need to stay OUT of politics. WTF Apple?!

it is a sad fact that american bigotry still going strong... and that is very sad.

Another proof that about 50% of Americans are still living in the stone age.

That and the fact that the constitution (the holy grail of rights for Americans) was written more than a decade ago and still rule today.

Obama is a step in the right direction no doubt, but next time you laugh at other religious beliefs, take a strong look at yourselves and see if what was ok back then is still ok today...?

Wake up people!!

I don't understand the sanctity of marriage argument. The staggering divorce rates have done far greater harm to the institution of marriage than I think anyone could purport would occur if same-sex couples who love each other would be able to marry as well.

Can an atheist not be married? It's not about religion and one's religion should not infringe on the rights of another.

Civil unions are not equal to marriage under the law so to say equal rights with civil unions is incorrect.

This is very reminiscent of the "different, but equal" doctrine of the civil rights era and I think history will judge people like "ericdano" just as harshly.

Don't buy Apple. Yes on Proposition 8

I'm so disappointed. On a day our country took such a great leap forward by electing the first ever black / biracial president, California took an equally giant leap backward. I hope the rest of the votes to be counted will change that.

What is even more scary is how close they came to taking away women's rights to have an abortion.

I'm truly shocked, and dismayed by both of these figures.

It's obvious that knuckle-draggers will not be on the endangered species list in California anytime soon.

Sad.
Very sad.

And it passed because blacks voted overwhelmingly Yes by a 70-30 margin. The irony that their higher turnout gave Obama the presidency and also led to the defeat of this civil rights issue.

Just think, about 40 years ago it was still illegal for blacks to marry whites in some states. How quickly we forget.

Nov 05, 08 - 03:15 pm Comment from: Horseman

The religious in this world, by far, are some of the most evil, more despicable people on earth. Think I'm overstating? They argue sanctity of marriage. So what about divorce? They're not speaking against divorce, you know why? Because it's not about sanctity of marriage, it's about God saying it's a sin, and them forcing their world view on everyone else, and they can't do it if they argue God in a secular nation. That means they're lying. That means they're hypocrites. That means they're sinning.

Religion. The greatest evil in the world.

Tony Fadell, come back, all is forgiven.

Nov 05, 08 - 03:16 pm Comment from: ericdano

Reason, look, it is a DEMOCRACY. Go look up the term. We put it up for a vote, and it lost........again. So, the PEOPLE do not want this.

What you want to do is ram a set of beliefs down people's throats. That is NOT what a DEMOCRACY does. It was up for a vote, and it got voted down. Period. Deal with it and move on.

Wahhh, wahhhh the people gave their decisions yesterday and wahhhhh I like the Batak decision but wahhhh the 52% are wahhhh facists.

Nov 05, 08 - 03:21 pm Comment from: Horseman

ericdano, group 1 should not be able to tell group 2 what they can and cannot do, particularly when no one's getting hurt by group 2's actions. Just because a majority of the people don't like it, doesn't give them the right to tell the minority they can't do it. It's all about you trying to control someone else's life, and that, my friend, is a psychosis.

Nov 05, 08 - 03:22 pm Comment from: The Other Steve

It's too bad Apple & Google was outspent big time by religious organizations.

I'm also disappointed that us Californian's chose (by a very close margin) to put civil rights on the back burner.

It's also a good lesson for my kids that the majority do not always make the right choice. (right as in my opinion)

Nov 05, 08 - 03:23 pm Comment from: Cubert

@marc,
I think this is really supposed to be about Dell's support for Prop 8 and not Apple's. I hear they shipped a bunch of laptops to the group.

"Land of the free and the home of the brave" is just an ideal -- far from the reality of the situation.

At least in WA you can now kill yourself...

@ericdano
I know it was voted down, I understand democracy (I also understand that America isn't a true democracy it's much closer to a republic so perhaps you should look up democracy and stop suggesting that I would be stupid enough to not understand what you apparently do not).

My point still remains and Horseman made some of the same. History will not be kind to you ericdano and the sanctity argument is wholly transparent.

Hate and discrimination didn't disappear from the USA overnight.
At least I know the profits from the products I buy go to a company with ideals of liberty and equal rights for all.

What amuses me is the gall it takes to bring religion into this issue at all. The Christian faith (et al) are supposed to be about acceptance and tolerance. Yet all too often, the farther into such faiths people get, the less accepting, tolerant, and more outright xenophobic they become.

Nov 05, 08 - 03:33 pm Comment from: Cascadians

There is only one rational outcome to the whole thing. It will end up in the Supreme Court for the whole nation.

It will have to be decided that marriage is a religious institution and civil union a government institution. Civil union will have to be equal for all and marriage will have to decided upon by each religion, each church.

The Constitution guarantees equal rights and eventually all discrimination in legal matters will be eliminated.

This is the only possible outcome over time; it is just a question of how long it will take.

Being English, I admire the American way in a lot of respects, but I just can't understand this religious bit. It's like a civilisation had the knowledge to travel to far galaxies, and travel in time, yet still used candles for lighting and sacrificed babies to Bastet.

A very miserable, small minded, selfish and mean-spirited vote by the Californian public.

For thousands upon thousands of years of human history, marriage has been defined as a union between man and woman. And yet we're arrogant enough to think we, in our small corner of history called "the present", can simply declare it with a new definition?

It's easier to point fingers and name-call, than it is to understand just what an sweeping attempt this is to fundamentally redefine an institution which has established history going beyond any one race, any one religion, any one culture.

The fact that Prop 8 addresses only the *legal* definition of marriage, doesn't change the weight of history and culture behind it.

Nov 05, 08 - 03:37 pm Comment from: HMCIV

Here's a question: If gay marriage becomes legalized across the country, will devout heterosexuals stop getting "married" and start doing something else, such as "Engaging in Holy Union"?

So much headache over a single word. But so long as my child-in-law pays the dowry in Mac Hardware I'm sure we'll get along fine.

The government should get out of the business of tracking personal relationships. Marriage, gay unions, whatever. There is no longer a point.

When Apple publicly made a stance and put money on the line, it sat wrong with a lot people because people feel companies should stay out of the social engineering business.

Ok, now the arguement from the yes on 8 people is that the democracy has spoken to remove a civil right from a portion of the population based on their religious views. Answer me this... how is that any different than the popular vote of the 50s to disallow blacks the right to vote? Or not allowing Women the right to vote in the early 1900s?
Call it whatever you want, but the reality of the situation is that popular opinion is not always right nor is it legal. I fully expect this proposition to be challenged in court and eventually removed regardless of the current results.
Equality for everyone, and separation of church and state! That is America! And anyone who says differently can pack their bags and move to country where religion rules the government. I hear Iran is nice.

Nov 05, 08 - 03:39 pm Comment from: ericdano

"ericdano, group 1 should not be able to tell group 2 what they can and cannot do, particularly when no one's getting hurt by group 2's actions. Just because a majority of the people don't like it, doesn't give them the right to tell the minority they can't do it. It's all about you trying to control someone else's life, and that, my friend, is a psychosis."

Gee Horseman, that is called GOVERNMENT. How about one group saying to the other that it needs to pay more in taxes? Is that not the SAME THING?

I know, how about this, why don't we let everyone just do what they want. If you want to pay taxes, then you can. If you want to skip, you do that too. If you want to speed, why not? Why should ONE group tell the other group they cannot do it? What if I want to rob a store? Why can't I do that?

We have rules. We voted on them. That is called Government. That is the way it works. If you want to change things, you put it up for a vote. We did. It didn't pass. End of story.

A great day for democracy.

@ericdano

this mentality baffles be, and frankly is extremely ignorant. "they try to force their views on on" doesn't fly, because you, ignorant one, are forcing your views on them. Religion has no place in government, which is exactly why we declared our independence from Britain (and of course the taxation without representation). Now, 200+ years later, the fundamentalist "christians" are persecuting, and imposing their will into our shattered constitution.

If you insist on placing this before the US Supreme Court, you are just asking for the American public to pass an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. That is all that you and your friends accomplished in California and a MAJORITY of US states. Do you really want to have this defined in the US Constitution? If so, fine with me.
Kate

Nov 05, 08 - 03:45 pm Comment from: ericdano

It is amazing how one side, the people who want Gay Marriage will not tolerate the other sides view even after Democracy has spoken.

...and it's nice to see that people can still preach tolerance and acceptance for same-sex marriages, yet in the same breath spew intolerance and hatred for all religions anywhere. Is it too much to ask for some consistency?

The greatest threat to democracy, in my mind, is these groups of people who have it stuck in their mind that THEIR WAY IS THE ONE TRUE PATH, and anyone in their way is evil incarnate.

That's not how democracy works. Whether you like the results or not, you have to accept the outcome of the democratic process. Cultural change resulting from new laws crammed down the throats of an unwilling populace cannot succeed, and will only provoke backlash.

The more people we have who simply refuse to accept the outcome of a legitimate democratic process - whatever the outcome - the closer our country approaches self-destruction.

Nov 05, 08 - 03:48 pm Comment from: Harvey

Marriage is a civil contract. Currently, atheists are allowed to marry. I don't see any reason why people should be barred from entering into a civil contract, just because it has the same name as a church rite for which they might be ineligible. It violates the 14th amendment of the US constitution, which regulates state laws and constitutions.

So far as the church rite is concerned, this proposition prohibits at least four large religious groups from performing marriages between gay people. In other words, it makes it into an illegal religious rite. That violates the first amendment of the US constitution.

A Methodist minister married my sister to a child molester. Ted Bundy got married while on death row for mass murder. If neither of those two events destroyed religious marriage, then gay people marrying each other won't either.

Proposition 8 is immoral, wrong, and illegal.

Ezekiel 16

Nov 05, 08 - 03:49 pm Comment from: Beaker

It was WRONG for Apple to get involved in anyway, bad image.

Nov 05, 08 - 03:50 pm Comment from: ericdano

"this mentality baffles be, and frankly is extremely ignorant. "they try to force their views on on" doesn't fly, because you, ignorant one, are forcing your views on them. Religion has no place in government, which is exactly why we declared our independence from Britain (and of course the taxation without representation). Now, 200+ years later, the fundamentalist "christians" are persecuting, and imposing their will into our shattered constitution."

What? So, even though we had it up for a vote, and the people spoke, you still won't accept it? Look here, ignorant one, read up on how Democracy works.

@ ericdano
I guess in your democracy, if a racist state passed a proposition by a majority that said brown-skinned people cannot "marry", then that would be right and fit your definition of how your democracy works?

Nov 05, 08 - 03:53 pm Comment from: ericdano

"That's not how democracy works. Whether you like the results or not, you have to accept the outcome of the democratic process. Cultural change resulting from new laws crammed down the throats of an unwilling populace cannot succeed, and will only provoke backlash."

Exactly.

Yes, Gabriel. And it happens because the biggest risk for democracy is the (ingenuos) idea that we must establish equal rights for everybody.

I want to marry a child. How's that?

@ericdano

I know know democracy works, moron. And I also know that our constitution USED to protect our religious beliefs, or lack of beliefs. This amendment had no place to be put in our constitution, because it TAKES RIGHTS AWAY, and that my little ignorant friend, is not what our constitution should do.

Nov 05, 08 - 04:00 pm Comment from: ericdano

Noodle-Armed Choir Boy, or rather strawman-armed choir boy, calm down. Now you are proposing something that would not happen.

It was up for a vote, the people said no. So, what if the 56 million people who voted for McCain decided they simply were not going to pay taxes or support Obama because they think it was morally wrong to choose him as President? Our society and government would collapse.

If you want equal rights under the law, the lobby for it. I suggest using the term "Union" or something. I think what really killed it was using the term Marriage. People just don't want that term redefined. So, come back in the next election, have a prop that gives equal whatever under the law as a Union, and all will be fine.

There is no logical argument against gay marriage. It has absolutely no impact on heterosexual marriages. The insecure, the homophobic, the religious extremists, the ignorant, and the stupid need to quit trying to make society into their warped image of how people should live. I am ashamed of my fellow human beings. It's unbelievable that we could elect Obama and at the same time do something so mean spirited and wrong.

As for those who don't like Apple's giving money to a political cause, sell your stock and don't buy their products. The fact that you own stock or a Mac doesn't mean you have the right to manage the company.

And no, I'm not gay.

Cavemen

Nov 05, 08 - 04:05 pm Comment from: mike k.

Gabriel: The more people we have who simply refuse to accept the outcome of a legitimate democratic process - whatever the outcome - the closer our country approaches self-destruction.

on your view is there anything which it would be wrong to put to a popular vote, or is what the majority prefers always a legitimate democratic outcome?

This is still money well spent by Apple. Apple has many employees whose civil rights are being taken away and it is appropriate to show their support as they are an employer in CA. The opposition may have won this battle (it's still being counted, btw) but equality in America always finds its way. It's only a matter of time.

At least gays have the right to hang a heterosexual in effigy, and the straights can DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT.
So, you win some, you lose some.

Nov 05, 08 - 04:06 pm Comment from: ericdano

xx: "I know know democracy works, moron. And I also know that our constitution USED to protect our religious beliefs, or lack of beliefs. This amendment had no place to be put in our constitution, because it TAKES RIGHTS AWAY, and that my little ignorant friend, is not what our constitution should do."

What happened was that there was a lawsuit, and some judges found a little thing in the equal protection clause, and then ruled that gay marriage could take place.

There were no rights before that under the law. I'm all for giving all those legal rights to people. But call it something else. If you want those rights, then seek them as a Union or something. It is the term that made it fail. The general population does not, as we have seen via DEMOCRACY, like the idea of gay marriage.