When Tech Giants Tinker with Marriage

I was sorely disappointed when I learned that Google and Apple — arguably two of the most innovative and powerful technology companies in the U.S. — decided that they should try to influence voters going to the polls on November 4.

No, I am not talking about the Presidential elections (although that too was on November 4). I am talking about the sizable contributions of these companies to the campaign against a proposed amendment to the California Constitution to protect marriage, also known as Proposition 8.

Google’s official stand is here: Our position on California’s No on 8 campaign. Apple, for its part, was widely reported to have made a large donation to the campaign against Proposition. Here’s the Technology Chronicles story on that: Apple donates $100,000 to fight Prop. 8.

Proposition 8 is an amendment to the State Constitution of California to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It is a reaction to an activist California Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalized same-sex marriage in that state. This occurred despite a previous California law (known as Proposition 22) that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and which was overwhelmingly passed by California
voters. Since Proposition 22 was declared unconstitutional by a 4-3 decision of the high court last May 15, supporters of traditional marriage in California have now offered the Proposition 8 amendment to the California State Constitution, which will effectively overturn the activist court decision.

Early returns from California shows the Yes vote leading by a wide lead. Thank God for that!

Apparently I’m not the only blogger dismayed by this latest politicking by Google and Apple. Here’s what the Kazoolist has to say in “In Search Of: Non-Political Tech Companies“:

But, what concerns me even more than the fact that Apple and Google took this position in favor of gay marriage is the fact they took a position at all.

Having giant corporations put huge sums of cash behind social-issue political causes gives me pause. This isn’t an issue that affects how well Google can provide search or Apple can make iPhones. Google and Apple, in my opinion, have no business injecting themselves into this issue.

It would take 10,000 individuals giving $20 to pro-Position 8 organizations to offset what Google and Apple did. Do we really want tech companies crowding out the advocacy of thousands of individuals?

Let me make clear that although I am a Catholic, I also have purely rational,  pragmatic, non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage and therefore being in favor of Proposition 8. No matter how Apple, Google, and the opponents of Proposition 8 cut it, the fact remains that their reasoning is wrong. Marriage is NOT simply about “marrying someone you love”. If it were, then we would have to allow family members “in love” with each other to marry (incest); or adults and minors who are “in love” to marry (pedophilia); or those in love with many people to marry them all (polyamory, polygamy). Now what if someone really loves his dog? Extreme, but you get the idea.

The Kazoolist agrees with me on that:

Furthermore, should you allow the argument that everyone has “rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love” – to be logically consistent, you’d need to allow pedophiles the right to marry kids they love and/or immediate family members to marry each other should they be “in love”. I know that sounds over the top, but I challenge anyone who disagrees to show me how that’s not the logical extension of that argument.

Google making such a FUD-filled, and, frankly, dishonest, statement about Proposition 8 really turns me off to the Google brand. So much for “don’t be evil.“

Redefining marriage to accommodate the sexual leanings or orientation (whether voluntary or otherwise) of one group means that, to be fair, we must make the same concessions for all such groups. Marriage will eventually mean nothing and the damage to families will be tremendous. Marriage, after all, is more than just about love and companionship. It is the primary instrument through which human beings beget and nurture children, thereby propagating the species. No one has found a better way yet.

It’s hard to estimate the influence of these well-known and very rich corporations. It certainly isn’t common for either Apple or Google to go out on a limb on these issues, as the Technology Chronicles article notes:

It is not common practice for either company to take a stand on political measures. It remains to be seen what effect the move might have on Proposition 8 supporters, who might avoid doing business with companies that oppose the measure.

It would seem, however, that Google and Apple seem to think that precisely because of their popularity and the ubiquitous nature of their products, they can get away with such things with little fear of a backlash from ordinary people.

Well, that may change. At least I know for sure that I am NOT going to buy a Mac, iPod, iPhone, or something running Android. And if some nice person gives me one, I can always sell it. My only regret will be that it will be too late to make a contribution to the Yes On 8 campaign.

Updates to this post (1)

From the article “Gay-rights advocates to challenge Proposition 8” in the Chicago Tribune:

“This is exactly the type of behavior that brought us to this position to begin with,” said Proposition 8 co-chair Frank Schubert. “The people voted eight years ago overwhelmingly in favor of traditional marriage, and they seem to be saying in pretty strong terms again … that they favor traditional marriage, and yet this is not accepted by gay-rights activists.”

“Now, if they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it. But they don’t. They go behind the people’s back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society.”

Former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin said the legal challenge will be a “tough battle” for supporters of same-sex marriage.

Updates to this post (2)

It would seem that trends over the past decade should give us reason to worry. Just as more Americans have come to accept same-sex marriage, there also seems to be some move to normalize pedophilia! Homosexuality was once considered a psychological disorder, but the American Psychiatric Association (APA) changed that long ago. Now, the APA has changed the definition pedophilia, which theoretically leaves room for a “normal pedophile”. The report, “The Problem of Pedophilia“, is very disturbing, to say the least. It notes:

The American Psychological Association did not denounce the positions advanced within the that journal. In fact, just recently, the A.P.A. published a new, major study (2) written by one of those same Journal of Homosexuality writers.

This latest article appears in the A.P.A.’s own prestigious Psychological Bulletin. It provides an overview of all the research studying the harm resulting from childhood sexual abuse.

The authors’ conclusion? That childhood sexual abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm–and that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children’s backgrounds. When the sexual contact is not coerced, especially when it is experienced by a boy and is remembered positively, it may not be harmful at all.

The authors of the article propose that psychologists stop using judgmental terms like “child abuse,” “molestation,” and “victims,” using instead neutral, value-free terms like “adult-child sex.” Similarly, they say we should not talk about the “the severity of the abuse,” but instead refer to “the level of sexual intimacy.“

The authors conclude that behavior which psychotherapists commonly term “abuse” may only constitute a violation of social norms. And science, they say, should separate itself from social-moral terminology. Religion and society, these writers argue, are free to judge behavior as they wish…but psychiatry should evaluate behavior by its own set of standards.

In fact, the authors of the Psychological Bulletin article propose what they consider may be a better way of understanding pedophilia: that it may only be “abuse” if the child feels bad about the relationship. They are in effect suggesting a repetition of the steps by which homosexuality was normalized. In its first step toward removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic Manual, the A.P.A. said the condition was normal as long as the person did not feel bad about it.

Few laymen are aware that the American Psychiatric Association recently redefined the criteria for pedophilia. According to the latest diagnostic manual (DSM–IV), a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children. To be diagnosed as disordered, now he must also feel anxious about the molestation, or be impaired in his work or social relationships. Thus the A.P.A. has left room for the “psychologically normal” pedophile.

If we accept same-sex marriage, can acceptance of pedophile relationships be far behind?