
Bezos pledges $2.6M to support same sex marriage - frankphilips
https://mashable.com/2012/07/27/bezos-same-sex-marriage/
======
learc83
Personally, I don't support same sex marriage, bug legally I see no real
reason to ban it. However, I'd prefer the government who represents me, not
endorse a practice I don't support.

My solution for years has been for the government to get out of the marriage
business entirely. Marriage should be a purely religious ceremony, and we can
establish something like a civil union contract law to handle issues like
joint ownership of property, child custody, and inheritance.

That way anyone, gay, straight, or polygamist can get the legal benefits of
marriage, and they can find a religious institution willing to conduct the
religious ceremony.

~~~
imgabe
We effectively already have that. A legal marriage is obtained completely
independently from a religious marriage. The simple fact that the legal
construct is called "marriage" seems to throw the religious types into a
fervor, because they somehow think that changing the legal construct has some
effect on their own religious use of the word. I guess the fact that words can
have multiple meanings and be used in different ways is not taught in Sunday
school.

There's no reason to change the name of the legal agreement known as
"marriage" to "civil union" other than to pacify the superstitious.

~~~
Loic
The _real_ problem here in most of Europe is that if you _allow_ same sex
marriage, you give the couple all the rights of a married couple. These rights
include adoption. This is the main driving force against same sex marriage in
most of Europe.

Same sex couples adopting is a very sensitive issue, I am lucky to have
friends who adopted (in Germany we have less than 10 men couples having
adopted), the boy is now a bit less than 2 year old and I am still wondering
if this is a good thing or not. This is why I completely understand that the
general population can react strongly as even me, being able to play on the
floor with the little boy, being a rational kind of person and seeing the
little boy smiling and happy, can still have some doubts.

~~~
imgabe
Why exactly might it not be a good thing for a child to be raised by a same
sex couple?

~~~
Loic
I personally don't know. From my experience as son and now as father, what I
really think is important is to have two parents with different characters and
way of thinking. Because a kid will never think like you and react like you,
being two with different ways to see the world is helping wonderfully to
better understand your kid and help him/her to grow and develop him/herself.

Can these differences be found within a same sex couple? Most likely, also not
in the same way as woman/man. Is it better 2 loving fathers instead of living
alone in an institution, definitely.

Non exceptional same sex couples with children is a fundamental change in the
society, we need to accept that it will take time for this change to become
accepted.

------
chernevik
Excellent. I can now express my view of heartily not giving a damn about my
vendors' political opinions by reading a book bought at Amazon while eating a
sandwich bought at Chik-Fil-A.

~~~
rayiner
I'm curious why you talk about it like its a good thing. Market pressure to
get rid of incorrect social views is the only alternative to legislative
action to force such change.

As a consumer buying a product, there are lots of things I value besides just
the product I'm getting. I care about service, etc. Not being terrible people
is also something I value, and I don't see anything wrong with reflecting that
in my purchasing decisions.

~~~
slurgfest
I'm curious about the method by which one determines when a social view is
"incorrect." Take a survey?

What if I think that marriage should be defined religiously by a religious
institution rather than legally by the state? I guess I am "incorrect" for not
supporting state-recognized gay marriage. But how was I supposed to determine
this before you came along to tell me?

~~~
rayiner
Were bans on interracial marriage incorrect? Was slavery incorrect? I'm not
saying bans on gay marriage are as bad as slavery, obviously, but rather that
there are certain issues which over the course of history will become
generally accepted social truth. That is, of course, the only sort of
"correctness" that is possible on a social issue.

Marriage, in the legal sense, just a particular type of contract, long
recognized because of how commonly people wanted to enter into a particular
type of economic arrangement. It is non-sensical to think religious
institutions should have any say in defining this type of contract, any more
than they have a say in defining the contracts that pertain to, say,
residential leases. Should religious institutions be able to use Biblical
scripture to argue that implied in any residential lease is a warranty that
the landlord will have running water, etc? Of course not, that is the
exclusive domain of the secular courts. The marriage contract, being no
different, should be treated no differently.

~~~
chernevik
I'm not sure how your first paragraph differs from saying that some social
consensus, at some point in time, constitutes ethics, for no other reason than
that consensus.

------
Zirro
As someone who isn't entirely familiar with this concept of pledging money for
or against laws (I'm not from the US), I wonder: Where does this money go?
Essentially, it sounds like you are buying the opinion of the people. Is it
through advertising, or "bribes" to important individuals with power?

~~~
chernevik
The money is spent on political advertising, organizing and polling. The
intention is to influence votes on some electoral question, most often on
selection of officers but here on a particular referendum.

A not-unimportant percentage goes to political consultants.

In financial markets it is well understood that brokers' fees, though a tiny
fraction of transactions, are an important driver of marketing activity. It is
widely thought that these fees create dangerous conflicts of interest
requiring extensive regulation.

The possibility of similar forces in other arenas is not so carefully noticed.

~~~
afterburner
Not just to influence votes, but also to get out the vote. Getting out the
vote doesn't necessarily change peoples' opinions, just encourages them to
express it.

~~~
bcbrown
It can change the outcome of the electorate as a whole, if the less-likely-to-
vote voters vote differently then more-likely-to-vote voters.

~~~
afterburner
Yes, I completely agree, that's the point of getting out the vote. I'm just
saying that part isn't concerned with changing minds, just getting the minds
to the voting booth so the vote is affected.

------
briandear
Here's the short answer: government stay out of my life. Keep us from getting
blown up, make sure we can get from one place to another and help keep my
stuff from getting stolen.

I'll take care of the rest.

If people (Gay or Straight) want to have a corporate merger and agree to co-
mingle assets, then they should have that right. If they want to join a church
that bestows upon them the title of "married" then they should have that
right, provided they meet the church's definition or requirements to achieve
"marriage." If they don't agree with the church, they can start their own or
just not have a church. The government should not be the arbiter of religious
beliefs except in cases when religious beliefs directly compromise another's
rights (i.e. honor killings.)

~~~
mhurron
Despite what many people think, this has nothing to do with religious beliefs
or institutions or said institutions conducting a wedding.

It is entirely about the legal construct of marriage. By your own words this
is the governments place as people are using their religious and moral beliefs
to restrict others civil rights.

~~~
slurgfest
No, it really does have a lot to do with religious beliefs and institutions
because those are examples of the kinds of social communities which define
marriage and the kinds of institutions which carry traditional culture.
Traditional cultures are where the idea of marriage comes from and cultural
communities are what give it any meaning.

That doesn't mean all traditional ideas of marriage have been the same, they
haven't (any more than cultural ideas of homosexuality or gender-bending have
been the same). That doesn't mean you aren't free to choose or make your own
religion. but doing so doesn't remove the historical context and social
meaning of "marriage."

Having me use a certain terminology with regard to your relationship (let
alone believe certain things about your relationship) is NOT your civil right.

It isn't the government's business to provide financial incentives for
"marriage" either.

You should be able to have any person you want to visit you in the hospital,
however. Could be your horse trainer, why should it matter?

------
walexander
Does money really have any affect on issues like this? It's great Bezos is
taking a stand, but what good will this do? What harm can really be done by
Chik-Fil-A's CEO?

Here in NC the amendment to ban same sex marriage passed with something like a
20% margin. That was _despite_ anti-amendment spending beating them by 2:1
[1]. People have fairly deep convictions about these things and I don't think
a campaign commercial is going to sway anyone's opinion.

[1]<http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/11021903/>

~~~
mrgoldenbrown
Many states have a much closer margin, so swaying a few % can make or break a
campaign. See the California case and all the money the Mormons dumped into
the Prop 8 campaign. They used ads that basically lied about what allowing gay
marriage would mean (saying things like schools would start encouraging kids
to be gay), which helped scare just enough people.

~~~
sigzero
Please, they didn't scare anyone. When it is put up to a vote, in almost every
instance, people vote for traditional marriage.

------
Xcelerate
I find it odd that what people do with their own money gets so much attention.
First Chick-fil-A's CEO, now Amazon's. For someone who is socially lacking,
could someone explain to me why these generate so much news?

~~~
afterburner
The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support
"biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his
own personal money.

~~~
learc83
>The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support
"biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his
own personal money.

Since it's a privately held company, I don't really see much difference.

Also Chick-Fil-A has been well known for decades, as a company that supports
biblical principles. I live in Georgia where they're from, and I don't think
they'd be nearly as large as they are today without the brand loyalty that
support has built them.

~~~
afterburner
So you see no difference in Bezos personally contributing money without
linking it to his company, and the Chick-Fil-A president making it a matter of
company policy? Just curious.

Besides, it's not like people are saying the Chick-Fil-A president _can't_ say
what he said. The story here is that a _lot_ of people are deeply unimpressed
with his statement, and are effectively enacting a de facto boycott (not
allowing expansion into communities that disagree with his stance).

It's perfectly fine for this to be discussed, and besides you possibly not
identifying with the complainants (as you point out in another comment here),
I don't see why you object to it. (Note that I am mainly responding to the
parent comment from another user: "I find it odd that what people do with
their own money gets so much attention".)

~~~
learc83
>So you see no difference in Bezos personally contributing money without
linking it to his company, and the Chick-Fil-A president making it a matter of
company policy? Just curious.

No, Amazon is a publicly held company, not solely Bezos' property (I doubt his
board would even let him do the same thing).

Chick-Fil-A is for all intents and purposes is the "personal money" of the
owners, so I see no difference in what someone does with his money or his
property.

I'm fine with the boycott. I don't support it, but I respect it.

What I'm not fine is this.

>not allowing expansion into communities that disagree with his stance

If a local government denies building permits to a business because it
disagrees with the owner's _speech_ , that is a _blatant_ first amendment
violation. Far more knowledgeable people than myself have said the same thing.
I really doubt the lawyers for whatever municipality plans on banning them
will allow that to happen.

If the people of a local community don't want Chick-Fil-A there, they won't
patronize it. Chik-Fil-A's market research will probably find that out and
they won't build there.

~~~
afterburner
That's not the distinction I'm making. But I see where we're talking past each
other: you're primarily concerned with what the company or CEO has a _right_
to do. I'm talking about how big a deal that action is (personal donation of
CEO vs company policy statement from CEO). And it has nothing to do with
private vs publicly held. Sure, I agree, they both have a right to do what
they did. But, opinions on the key issue aside, those two actions had a
different scale and connotation to them.

As for rights, try to keep in mind the key issue here is a debate on a
specific right as well. What people are debating is changing the law, changing
your rights. If local governments feel a certain right or something they
desire to be considered a right is being infringed on or threatened by a
company, then it's no longer so black and white.

------
raldi
> Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and that company’s CEO, Steve Ballmer, each
> pledged $100,000 to fight Referendum 74

They mean "to fight _for_ " the referendum, right?

~~~
ryanmolden
Confusingly enough probably not. Our governor signed the marriage act into law
without it being on the ballot for public vote (correctly in my opinion).
Referendum 74 was started as a way to force a public vote on the matter. The
people who started it clearly think/want the public to reject the law. I am
somewhat nervous about the vote as outside the King county area (Seattle,
Redmond, etc...) the state can trend fairly conservative. So them fighting the
referendum would mean fighting against putting this up for a public vote and
fighting for leaving the law in place as it is.

Edit: for more clarity in last sentence.

~~~
phil
Agreed, but that fight is over: it's going to be on the ballot.

------
bcbrown
Bezos has historically not given any high-profile donations, and the Seattle
Times ran a series earlier this year bashing Amazon for its lack of "corporate
citizenship". I wonder if this is a start of an effort to counteract that
perception.

------
briandear
I wonder if Bezos will stop selling Chick Fil'A stuff.
[http://www.amazon.com/Pez-Chick-Fil-A-Cow-
Sealed/dp/B003RMEB...](http://www.amazon.com/Pez-Chick-Fil-A-Cow-
Sealed/dp/B003RMEBHG)

------
dragthor
Hopefully some day I can marry multiple women. Or maybe some day hopefully a
mother and son can marry. Who is to say? As long as we are all adults and love
one another.

~~~
cobrausn
I know you're trolling, but I fully expect polygamists to see support for same
sex marriage as a sign that they deserve the right to marry whom they choose
as well, and start campaigning for it. I seriously doubt they will gain the
same progressive fanfare, but I see it happening eventually.

As for the second part - the risks of incest to the children of such couplings
(who certainly can't consent to being the product of incest) are well known,
and it's worth a few laws and a heavy dose of shame to prevent such outcomes.

~~~
dragthor
I am not trolling. People need to ask themselves - why not just redefine
marriage as any two (or three or ten) people over the age of 18?

There are lots of ways to prevent a child from being born. Still... any two
consenting adults... brother-brother... brother-sister... sister-sister...
should all be allowed to "marry".

Redefining marriage is the radical point-of-view.

~~~
jonhendry
"I am not trolling. People need to ask themselves - why not just redefine
marriage as any two (or three or ten) people over the age of 18?"

Given the variety of marriages in the Bible (A guy, his wife, and his wife's
handmaiden, etc), who's redefining anything?

~~~
slurgfest
The redefinition is relative to a variety of traditional definitions which
include weird (and also Biblical) concepts like polygamy, concubines and
having compulsory sex with your brother's wife.

The redefinition is ultimately dictated by changes in material conditions
which lead to proximate changes in people's interests.

~~~
jonhendry
"The redefinition is relative to a variety of traditional definitions which
include weird (and also Biblical) concepts like polygamy, concubines and
having compulsory sex with your brother's wife."

If the definition includes all those, then there isn't really a definition
worth the name.

~~~
slurgfest
That's not true.

Even just in the Jewish traditions related in the Bible, there are many very
specific constraints. They just don't happen to be the same as "Leave it to
Beaver." But maybe the Bible is too much of a button-pusher example.

To understand, just consider one of the traditional definitions - let's take
the Hindu one. It isn't at all true that there is no traditional Hindu concept
of marriage, there is quite a strong one and there are a great many things it
excludes. These exclusions are meaningful.

The same thing is also true of many other traditional definitions. Although
some traditions are a little different from others. Now as the world urbanizes
many traditions are being mushed together in industrialized settings and they
are forming their own new standards. So same-sex marriage is up for grabs and
we see the current fight.

However, there is no traditional or modern tradition which includes marriage
with dead puppies.

Some things are in, others are out - there were many definite concepts but
each is changing and many are merging.

