Microsoft calls for Gay Marriage in Washington State
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Microsoft's efforts to create a truly equal workplace and community for me played a significant role on my decision to accept an offer there (note: I don't say this at the exclusion of other companies who make similar efforts).
What I do find interesting is that the Republican Party is becoming more fundamentalist as time and elections go on, especially when both Ballmer and Gates are Republican.
They're not Christian fundamentalists but they do happen to vote that way due to business issues.
On the other hand, the US's first-past-the-post election system makes a multi-party system pretty difficult to maintain, so who knows.
The UK has a first-past-the-post system and has maintained a three party system for over one hundred years now. It has largely been between two parties (Labour and Conservative) but the third party (Liberal Democrats) have still been a vocal minority in parliament.
I honestly do believe we'll see a third party (be it Fundamentalist of Libertarian, depending on who 'wins' the Republicans) with a decade or two. The outcome of this coming election (whether Romney wins, and how the party reacts) could be a deciding factor.
> I honestly do believe we'll see a third party
Hopefully, but I was a former political junkie and third parties were never elected.
For a Presidential election a coalition doesn't make sense, but you guys do have other branches of government that could use a bit of a change.
I sincerely wish you the very best with both.
Why is separate-yet-equal acceptable for any human being?
It's a disgusting, ignorant attitude. Society needs to grow up.
Do detractors think there should be separate water fountains for gays at work too?
The difference is this time at least people aren't being beaten and killed over this (at least not in mass).
But it does not help at all when the President of the United States says that gay rights are okay when they need fresh bodies for the wars to kill and be killed but on gay marriage "well he's still not convinced". It boggles my mind.
No, not in mass. Still lots of people bullied into suicide though.
No it doesn't. You just showed that on the one hand he gets "fresh bodies for the wars to kill and be killed" and on the other he doesn't lose votes.
Plus Microsoft would probably be sued by its shareholders if they didn't give a good, strategic decision for taking an overtly political position.
If Microsoft were to say "we support gay marriage just because", politicians on the other side could just shrug and not take a risky stand for their re-election. By saying that they are having issues hiring top talent Microsoft is hinting that maybe, possibly not allowing gay marriage would mean that they'll be less competitive, thus less money for the state, less jobs, less economic activity, etc. which politicians respond to. Plus it gives politicians arguments to justify themselves: they don't have to then say "well, it's the right thing" and upset some people, but instead "I'm doing it for the economy".
Health care decision making and visitation
Inheritance and other death-related stuff
Spousal immunity in court
Community property
Domestic violence laws apply
Tax breaks on property transfers between the partners
Veteran benefits
Sick leave can be used to care for partner
Adoption, child custody, and child support same as marriage
Note: I'm not suggesting that this means there is no need for marriage. Just pointing out that Washington is already very gay friendly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_and_Lesbian_Employees_at_Mi...
Socially conservative or otherwise authoritarian societies always find themselves on the losing side of the brain drain equation.
He's a politician. Racial discrimination is not political acceptable. Sexual Orientation Discrimination is political acceptable in some places.
No. Of course he doesn't. Be very afraid of people like this.
"I find it interesting how one can justify sexual descrimination but not racial"
I think that if you can justify sexual discrimination, scratch just a little below the surface and you'll probably also find a colour bias there as well. Along with a few others. I find prejudices tend to come in sets with a lot of a certain type of person.
Seattle's 13% LBGT population is second only to SF (15%). Attracting talent north is a practical matter.
Never understood why that angle was not brought up against hardcore republican/conservative voters - the type who are usually all "pro jobs/work/smallbusiness" types. Perhaps because it makes sense, and logic/reason isn't typically being employed by people when the "gay marriage" legislation topic floats around.
Edit: In 70 years these down-votes will be seen as ignorant and intolerant, you apes.
(You might reasonably think that is just something delusional fundamentalists cry to make a slippery-slope argument, because it is something they cry to make a slippery-slope argument, but if you hang around the right parts of the world - e.g. certain corners of San Francisco or the Internet - it's not very hard to see that it's at least plausible. The interpretation of the validity or invalidity of these potential developments and society's possible reactions to it are left as an exercise to the reader, however.)
You could perhaps put some reasonable upper bound on the number of people that could enter into such a marriage, so people can't abuse it to form absurdly large tax shelters, but how can anyone justify denying 3 or 4 people the right to be married?
What's so magical about the number 2?
It gets tricky when you consider the closed, fundamentalist Mormon sects and similar cult like systems, where polygamy sometimes is wrapped up with sexual abuse of children, etc.
Perhaps, if polygamy were legal, the isolated cultish groups could come out from underground, allowing them to more easily obtain wives from outside the group, which might reduce problems with the kids. But it might be too ingrained at this point.
I'm not sure how best to allow the first case, while not encouraging the persistence of the latter case.
The thing which is "magical", to use your term, is the family unit comprised of a mother and a father and their children. The children are exposed to both male and female influences, the combination of which is generally recognized as beneficial to their emotional development. The mother and father both have a stake in the upbringing of the children, without attendant conflicts of interest and jealousy. They may also be incentivized towards caring about future generations, building a better world for their children, and a number of other things.
Without that context of the family unit, there is, in fact, significantly less which can be said to be "magic" about the number 2. Notice that "family" occupies a significant portion of the cultural conversation of religious opposition to marriage-related issues, particularly internally-directed conversation (though the likes of 'god hates <x>' is another significant portion and usually louder / easier to find).
Again, this post is informative, not normative. Judgements on the extent to which any of these matters are desirable, and how much they ought to affect the social validity of a marriage of 3, 4, 5, or more, or marriages between 2 people (heterosexual or otherwise) who are not in the business of having children, or alternative ways to achieve any desirable goal mentioned in the above paragraphs, are once again left as exercises to the reader.
Note also that a pragmatic argument against 3+-person marriages exists, and relates to the fact that these are almost always polygynyous marriages and there may be negative social implications to having many unmarried males around, rendering societies more prone to crime, war, and other things. Again, the extent to which this is true and ought to influence social policy? Figure it out yourself.