Skip to Content

Apple opposes Calif. Prop 8, donates $100k to 'No' campaign

Apple issued a short statement on its Hot News page today saying it is publicly opposing California Proposition 8, and donating $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign.

Proposition 8 seeks to amend California's constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. A "no" vote on the measure means marriages between same-sex couples would continue to be valid in California.

"Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees' same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person's fundamental rights -- including the right to marry -- should not be affected by their sexual orientation," the statement read.

"Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8."

Update: Comments on this post are now closed. Thanks for your civil and constructive (mostly) responses.



Categories

Apple Corporate

Apple issued a short statement on its Hot News page today saying it is publicly opposing California Proposition 8, and donating $100,000 to...
 

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

363 Comments

Filter by:
Dawntreader

Well babble, I can see you have done much good to advance your cause with your last few posts. I think anyone with a small bit of intelligence can see where the hate is coming from now. I do not hate you but obviously you hate me.

Try this, open itunes, choose something nice and peaceful, press the spacebar, now press apple T and veg out to the visualizer for a little while. I think you really need it.

I have better things to do than to listen to your rubbish. If you had some substance and intelligent remarks I'd stick around but obviously you have spent all that you had and are now scraping the bottom of the barrel. Name calling and out right lies are all you have left in your arsenal, good luck hitting your target with that. Good night.

October 26 2008 at 11:18 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Dawntreader

Nic,
Thank you, I have found that discussion can progress much further through honesty and kindness. I agree with some things you say and disagree on others. That's cool, if we all agreed on everything this life would be kind of dull.

babble,
You know nothing about me yet you can determine that I am lying. Who's being judgmental now? Nothing I have said is a lie. I know that the path this world is on is not the path I believe it should be on, but I can't stop that. I'm all for trying to find a way for us to work it out.

My solution to the current topic is simple and truthful. Make civil unions just like marriage except in name. In fact Fozzy made several great arguments, this was one of them, but your vision has become clouded. You are so emotionally overwhelmed right now, you only have venom and name calling left. Earlier in the comments you were calm and reasoned. Maybe you should take a step back and calm down, it's easier to hear you when you aren't so out of control.

I am not one of the individuals that threatened to stop using Apple products based on this decision. I am not pleased with their choice, but I did not purchase my Apple products based on any moral code. I wanted the best computer I could get and that's what I did. Apple still makes the best computing hardware and software no matter what their moral or political beliefs may be. If I stopped buying products based on a corporations political and moral beliefs there isn't much I would be buying.

I know everyone that says they aren't homophobic says they have gay friends. It sounds so cliche, but I have MANY gay friends, dear friends, we just do not discuss things like this. There is no need, I know their stance, they know mine. I bring this up in hopes that you will believe me when I say I am not lying, I would vote yes to civil unions but not to marriage. The reason why has been covered extensively by Fozzy. I believe those that don't believe in God should have a civil union and not a marriage. Marriage is ordained by God and a civil union is ordained by man. Since you seem to believe God doesn't exist why do you need him to ordain your marriage, shouldn't man be good enough?

As for civil unions in their current form not giving all rights you desire, wouldn't it be just as easy, probably easier, to rewrite the law on that? I know you would have the entire Democratic party onboard with it and a good number of Republicans would go for it. I don't believe there has been any serious effort in this direction, it has all been directed at redefining marriage. If you truly believe gay marriage will not impact life for Christians as we know it, look at the link below. Another poster presented this link earlier, it is frightening and it is a direction that gay marriage may take us. I said MAY, I don't pretend to have all the answers, just most : ).

http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/04/09/adf-to-appeal-nm-commission’s-ruling-against-christian-photographer/

October 26 2008 at 10:00 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Dawntreader's comment
Babble777@gmail.com

Christian bigots who claim they'd be willing to accept watered down pseudo-marriage for fags ARE LYING.

Those SAME Christians are actively working AGAINST domestic partnership and civil union laws.

IT'S A LIE. DON'T THINK THESE PEOPLE LIKE YOU, OR WILL TOLERATE YOU.

They hate us. There is absolutely no point in being nice to these people, or begging for tolerance from them. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT OUR FRIENDS. They want to see us gone from the world. They think they can "cure" us.

THEY ARE THE ENEMY. See them for what they REALLY are.

They've decided we're destroying their society.

They've said as much in this VERY thread.

Do you REALLY think they're being honest when they say they'll give us some watered down half measure?

It's a lie.

Why do we need to beg for acceptance from these people?

We *don't*.

October 26 2008 at 10:21 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
CZ

Oh, one more thing.

IT'S NOT ABOUT LOVE, EITHER.

Marriage is JUST a legal integration of two people. It's a contract and under the law it is treated as such.

There are lots of people who are married and are not in love. Sometimes, it's just more practical to be married. You get a lot of special rights as a married couple, and you have someone who can act with power of attorney, next of kin, and executor of your estate, among other things. You get someone who you trust who can make decisions about your health or welfare when you are unable to do so.

Love doesn't have to enter into it, just as sex doesn't have to enter into it. All that's required for a proper marriage is two people who consent to bind themselves legally, a blood test, and a magistrate or judge to legitimize it.

Therefore, gender is NOT an issue.

October 26 2008 at 9:59 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Babble777@gmail.com

Killing unreprentant homosexuals is also in the Bible, kids.

Get your rocks together. You wouldn't want to be derelict in your religious duties, now would you?

October 26 2008 at 9:38 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
staniks

Fine let them have their civil unions but a marriage is between a man and a woman period. Look it up in the Bible.

October 26 2008 at 9:30 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to staniks's comment
CZ

NO, it is NOT.

"Marriage" is a LEGAL TERM.

"Wedding" is your religious ceremony.

Unlike some of you idiots, I actually read the Bible a few times, and in a few different translations, too. Just because your favorite English translation mis-uses the word marriage (which did not exist when the Bible was written, by the way), doesn't mean you own the word.

You are WELCOME to the word "wedding", but don't you dare tell me that my marriage, which is not at all religious, was never anywhere near a church, and has lasted longer than most, is in any way a religious, Biblically-granted right. It's not. It's my right as an American citizen, and a taxpayer.

Keep your Bible out of my laws, and out of my marriage. Stick it in your wedding, instead.

October 26 2008 at 9:54 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
CZ

I just wanted to point out to those mentioning "God" and "Creator" is in our Bill of Rights, that the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. They believed in God as a non-involved origin of the universe, and not as the God (Jehovah) of the Abrahamic faiths (Christian, Judaism, Islam). There's plenty of evidence to support the fact that guys like Thomas Jefferson outright rejected Christianity and the ideals put forth in the Christian Bible.

So please, when you're trying to back up your Christian ideals about abortion or gay rights, don't reference the Bill of Rights as a Christian document, because it most certainly is not. It's a document written by Deists, but they never intended it to have any religious implications-- In fact, they intended quite the opposite.

If they had any of the information we had today regarding science and the universe, they wouldn't have even bothered mentioning God, as they'd not be mystified by the origin of life, and wouldn't require the placeholder of a Creator to describe our origins.

October 26 2008 at 9:27 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Babble777@gmail.com

That's been my point all along.

Once Prop 8 has come and gone, *regardless* of the outcome of the vote, there will be vocal bigots shouting from the rooftops how "dangerous" we are; if homosexuals didn't already exist, Christians would surely have had to invent us. We're just so darned useful as a fundraising mechanism.

October 26 2008 at 8:35 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to Babble777@gmail.com's comment
William

Lawls, I'm only coming back to read Babble's witty posts now.

Although have to disagree about us being a fundraising mechanism. I'm pretty stingy. =/

October 26 2008 at 9:10 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Babble777@gmail.com

Watch the televangelists, Will. Somebody has to pay for the wigs and the candelabras. Better to rail against homosexuality, lest the preachers end up appearing too queeny.

October 26 2008 at 9:39 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Charles

All I see is that the "real" people who answered in the beginning of the thread were 80% for Apple's initiative. Then the religious watchdogs chimed in, smelling blood and began their well-learned propaganda - 90% of them probably not even being Apple users.

And for those who say that Apple is alienating 50% of their clientele, it would be true if Apple's clientele was more or less a reflection of society. But it is not - their clientele is on avergae more educated, rich and more liberal - that is, exactly the population that supports gay rights (and generallly civil rights) and is against prop8...


October 26 2008 at 8:14 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Babble777@gmail.com

A "civil, thoughtful" argument for disenfranchisement of an entire class of people, of less than full legal equality is no favor to us. Prejudice and bigotry aren't made nicer or more palatable by wrapping them in giftwrap and putting a nice bow on them.

It's just a new slight spin on the old spew. You lot recognize, these days, that playing the role of the firebreathing homophobes of the past was a losing gambit in your "culture war." It was costing you more converts than it was making.

So you pretend to be "nice" now.

October 26 2008 at 6:05 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to Babble777@gmail.com's comment
CZ

A few things I'd suggest for both sides of this argument:

First, stop saying "gay marriage" and start saying "same-gender marriage". Why? Several reasons.

1. This is a civil rights issue, not a sexual orientation issue. Two straight people should be able to enter into a marriage for legal purposes. That's the whole origin of legal, civil arrangements. Sometimes it was a husband and wife, and sometimes it was two people who wanted to share an estate and responsibilities. "Maritus" - Look it up.

2. Calling it "gay marriage" plays into the radical religious trap of making it sound "wrong" or "icky." Simply put, it makes opponents think about gay sex, because when homophobes hear "gay", all they're really hearing is "sodomy" (I cleaned it up for this forum). I'm sorry, but it's true. If you call it "same-gender marriage" then you remove sexuality as the focus and keep the marriage element intact, which is what it's really all about.

3. It's not very fair to lesbians or bisexuals, now is it? While "gay" does apply to all of the above, it's typically used as a descriptor for male homosexuals, and again, that's what the homophobes picture when they hear the word. Take the gender out of it entirely. Neuter the phrase and it becomes less powerful as a slur against those who seek it.

Next, let me point out the following to all those "sanctity of marriage" types who say it's a religious issue:

MARRIAGE = A legal arrangement available to members of ANY faith.

WEDDING = A religious ceremony that sanctifies a legal marriage.

What you religious types are claiming is that "marriage" is YOUR word, and that's simply not true. It's a legal word with a long history. It's a legal arrangement. It goes back to "maritus" (ancient Rome) and it never had any religious meaning until Christians suddenly decided to claim it in order to prevent people they didn't like from doing it. Black, gay, non-Christian... It's always about stopping other people from living their lives as well as you live yours, isn't it?

Anyway, MARRIAGE is not religious. What you're talking about when you claim "sanctity" is a WEDDING, which *is* a religious ceremony. Our modern culture has interchanged those words freely, but the fact is that when two people go before a judge or magistrate and sign a certificate, it's a legal MARRIAGE. When you march down the aisle and a holy man blesses your union, that's a WEDDING.

Thus "same-gender marriage" is, and should be, a LEGAL arrangement that joins two consenting adults in a civil arrangement that gives them certain rights and responsibilities. In fact, we shouldn't have to say "same-gender" or "gay" at all. It should just be "marriage", because the legal arrangement has frak-all to do with sex. It's all about property, next of kin rights, tax laws, and other things like that.

There's no legal requirement for a marriage to produce children. There's not even a legal requirement for the two parties involved to have sex (although some states use that for "verification of a legitimate union" in some cases, such as annulment proceedings or citizenship investigations).

As far as I know, NOBODY is asking your church to perform a same-gender wedding. All anybody is asking for is that the legal contract we know as marriage is applied to all citizens, regardless of their individual genders.

It's not about being gay. It's about being an American citizen who pays taxes, votes, and contributes to society. If a person can be taxed, then they should be able to enter into a marriage with whomever they choose, regardless of gender, race, religion, or national origin.

I'm male, and I've been married to my wife for 15 years. I have no children, and I am an atheist. Under the arguments made by some of the Christian bigots here, I would also not be allowed to be married. I mean, they say it's about reproduction, but we NEVER intended to have children. They say it's about religion, but we were both atheists when we stood before the Magistrate. They say it's about sex, but- well, that's private and none of your business. They say it's about gender, but I fail to see how the tax laws and right to visit my spouse in a hospital should have anything to do with what gender she is.

This is ridiculous. I applaud Apple for their decision, and I heap scorn upon anyone who votes in favor of this selfish, vile proposition.

October 26 2008 at 9:48 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Babble777@gmail.com

Hey Zero,

What the Christians posting here may find icky is irrelevant, really.

I get your point, but we *have* to stop giving in to these people, at some point. We HAVE to get beyond begging for acceptance from people who - no matter how safe or sanitized our language, no matter how willing we may be to accept watered down compromises - will NEVER actually tolerate us.

Why smooth things over?

For the sake of appeasing bigots who think we're icky?

Who cares? They will anyway.

October 26 2008 at 10:16 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Babble777@gmail.com

...really, would one of you get on your direct line to God and get the Rapture started?

Please?

October 26 2008 at 5:52 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Buy an ad here

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.