"The rainbow flag made its debut in 1978 at San Francisco's Gay and Lesbian Freedom Day Parade... The original flag had eight colors, two more than its customary version, each representing an aspect of gay life: red for life, orange for healing, yellow for sun, green for nature, blue for harmony, and violet for spirit."
"In 2006, a straight family in Kansas had to defend flying a rainbow flag at their bed and breakfast from some angry townspeople... Understanding the wider symbolism, the owners nevertheless chose to fly the flag because their young son said it reminded him of the movie The Wizard of Oz, evoking the movie's signature song, Over the Rainbow."
Flags are different. Flags always have symbolism, that's their point.
Similarly, children can draw a hammer and sickle for fun if they want. However, should you put it on a flag and fly it in front of your house, don't be surprised if people draw conclusions.
Even more extreme: Swastikas in the decorative masonry in a government building? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greca_a_svastica_-_palazzo...) Don't expect much controversy. Swastikas on a flag in the same building? Expect an issue. Something being in a flag or not is an incredibly important context that must be considered.
The University of Hawaii has several names for its sports teams, some of which are The 'Bows, Rainbow Warriors, and Rainbow Wahine.
Can’t you see quite clearly that in the story you are linking to the bigots are the problem, not the symbol?! Isn’t that obvious?!
Don't worry, the kids are just fine. As are the trout.
Oh my. What ghastly values. What terrible "appropriation".
Words change meaning over time. People create logos and symbols to represent their ideas and points of view. When corporations do it to sell things, it's called branding. When we do it to try and get treated like equals by society, it's called "appropriation". Sigh.
People who put flags on their house because they like the pretty colors are as tasteless as someone wearing a black armband because they think their outfit needed an accessory.
More specifically, its a circle. Though usually you can;t see the whole thing.
> The Pride flag is not.
The pride flag is a section of a rainbow of infinite radius.
Snowden, on the other hand, dominated HN when it broke and still continues to do so. While HN isn't necessarily political, it often is for matters of liberty. Why isn't this a bigger deal in this community?
1) Outrage will always get more publicity than celebratory or agreeable states. That's just human nature. I suspect by it not being big news on HN it is because most of the community supports Gay Marriage or at the least is not offended by it. I strongly support it.
2) it isn't technology focused. The NSA snooping is about misuse of the technology we all hold dear. It's also international, where as a Gay Marriage ruling in the US is really a regional issue, where many of us already live in more enlightened places. NSA snooping through major international sites is an international issue. Even if I'm never in the US, facebook, google, et.al (did I use that right?) affects me too.
So take heart, it isn't that the HN community doesn't care, it is more likely that many of us say 'good, about time', but that man not necessarily prompt an upvote.
Personally, I'm happy there's only one post on HN about it. Generally, discussions of social issues on HN tends to bring out the crazies in force.
(I know she's a supporter of gay rights, but it would be a big leap to translate that into rainbows showing on her google results page)
Unless you live in a state with full-fledged same-sex marriage, your HR dept. is still going to have to differentiate.
Section 2 of DOMA expressly released states from the requirement to recognize other states' gay marriages, but if it's struck down, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
So why wouldn't marriage apply? If it doesn't, I suspect this will be the target of new legal challenges.
[ETA: Apparently Section 2 of DOMA was not struck down. Sorry about that.]
But, IIRC, recognition of out-of-state marriages without conditions has never been required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause -- this was actually one of the arguments against Section 2 of DOMA.
Although gay marriage was previously legal in California, between all the legal challenges and the passage of Proposition 8, it didn't become fully normalized for legal purposes (ie regulations that are indirectly affected by marriage laws). Now that process will resume.
In any case, implementation of the CA Supreme Court's decision could not go ahead until the USSC had issued its decision; now the state is free to promulgate new rules.
The case concerning California’s ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8, was decided on technical grounds, with the majority saying that it was not properly before the court. Because officials in California had declined to appeal a trial court’s decision against them and because the proponents of Proposition 8 were not entitled to step into the state’s shoes to appeal the decision, the court said, it was powerless to issue a decision. That left in place a trial court victory for two same-sex couples who had sought to marry.
I'm belaboring the point to make clear that the Supreme Court did not rule on Proposition 8 itself.
The actual decision that can now be implemented is a decision of the US District Court for the Northern District of California (a federal trial court that struck down Prop 8 as a violation of the federal Constitution), not the California Supreme Court (the state appellate court who upheld the Proposition as a valid Constitutional amendment and not an improperly-passed Constitutional revision under the State Constitution.)
Last I checked, the composition of the Senate had a pretty big impact on who gets into the judicial branch of the US government.
Though federal benefits cannot be denied to married same-sex couples, state benefits can be if same-sex marriage isn't recognised in the state.
This still presents some headaches for some people and even the most well-meaning of employers.
For instance, imagine if you have a same-sex couple living in a state that doesn't recognise SSM (say, Wyoming) but who married in a state that does (Washington State). One of the two is working for a company just across the border in Washington State, but the other doesn't. Now imagine that the state provides health coverage while a person is unemployed, but it doesn't cover people whose partner's employer provides healthcare. Is the employed partner's health insurance liable for treating his unemployed partner or is the state liable to provide coverage?
What about when a couple is travelling? Is a gay partner covered by their partner's health insurance when visiting a state that doesn't recognise SSM? What about states that have civil unions rather than full SSM?
In Britain, it has been discussed a fair bit this week that even though since 2004 we've had civil partnerships which are supposedly "marriage in all but name", gay people in civil partnerships are still not getting fair treatment regarding pensions. As an openly gay man who might as some point want to get married, I've followed the news and discussions around the legislation on same-sex marriage in Britain fairly closely and I still don't know what the situation with pensions is, but apparently it's still broken.
I think things will be in a bureaucratic mess for a while. It'd probably be easier if it could be legalised across the whole country in one fell swoop... but that might just be wishful thinking on my part.
( But this response is the right response: http://asofterworld.com/index.php?id=710 )
However, I do think that the page behind the hidden heart is most adorable.
That's the first link I found referencing the fact that June is LGBTQ Pride month but if you look back over time Google has been doing this for years. This year it just happens to coincide with trending search terms due to the SCOTUS ruling. I can't believe I'm the first person to post this.
Google have also had a 'Legalize Love' campaign started in 2012 - http://www.google.com/diversity/legalise-love.html
Google also produced a TV ad for Chrome based on 'It Gets Better', and invited Dan Savage to talk at Google about It Gets Better.
So, yeah, Google love the gays. I'd love 'em back but for Google Reader. ;)
Consider the case of a confused kid looking things up in school or something similar, someone spots the rainbow walking behind him, since its very different from the normal Google and gets outed.
What if a straight kid googled 'gay marriage' just to see what the link on HN was all about and someone saw it? For shame! The horror!!
What if a velociraptor that's allergic to rainbows happened to walk by at that moment and flew into a rage consuming the entire public library with its violence?
What if a bully saw someone looking at a rainbow on the screen and said something stupid and was met with an overwhelming negative response by a large portion of his peers causing him to reconsider previous life decisions?
This game is fun!
That's what being closeted is: it's more than just not telling people you're gay/bi/etc. It's about actively managing and monitoring others' perception of you, and the mortal dread of being found out.
As a formerly deeply-closeted gay teen
"That's great! Wait, what happens if I'm in a country where being gay is illegal? Do I really want some searches to be highlighted so visibly?"
But I still think it's great they've done it.
Kind of ridiculous.
There are times when I would browse /r/lgbt (please go to /r/ainbow instead) and had to make sure I was logged into to avoid the custom stylesheet because it would warrant far too much attention for anyone walking behind me while using my laptop.
Either way, not sure if you got lumped in with the pseudo-bigots in this thread but I tried to help you out.
It's their site and all but as a business they should be more inclusive. Ironic since billions of people are (at least nominally) Christian and most probably observe or note Easter.
From what I've gathered, they've never really "doodled" anything that could remotely resemble a religion in the event that it looks like they endorse or favor it over others. Cesar Chavez was a civil rights activist akin to MLK or Gandhi so it seems pretty apt that they'd honor him in a doodle.
EDIT: Looks like I was wrong about religious-based doodles. But it still stands that they don't have to pander to a certain segment of the population (especially a major one) on an annual basis. Personally, I feel the doodles are more about educating and informing. I often come across doodles that represent some person or thing that I had no idea about before and find myself clicking on the doodle and the subsequent links it pulls up as part of the search. Seems like it's not always about celebrating the most commonly known ideas/people.
"From what I've gathered, they've never really 'doodled'
anything that could remotely resemble a religion..."
In fact, having already done Easter was part of their response to this "controversy" -- there were two subjects for the same day, so they picked the one they hadn't already featured.
Insofar as it matters, Google did have an Easter doodle back in 2000:
So you can't even say they've ignored the holiday, just that they prefer to highlight different ones from year to year (with exceptions presumably due to internal popularity or artists' personal predilections).
(Sorry for wasting thread space on this old, off-topic, manufactured controversy.)
Is that a thing outside the US ? I've never heard of it outside of US news.
I'm pretty sure they are people who beleives that in other countries. But do they get media attention like in the US ?
If the country in question is, I don't know, Cambodia, perhaps that is true (no idea if it is or not). But if the American christian fundamentalists are claiming that there is a war on christianity in England or France, then they are without doubt full of shit.
It seems like there is a certain brand of christian fundamentalist in America that really wants to think that the Romans are still tossing them to lions or something. They find that idea vindicating perhaps, I don't know. I don't get it.
You know what would be inclusive? Acknowledging that not everybody is for Gay Marriage, and being OK with the Google home page celebrating something other than your pro-Gay Marriage ruling.
Personally I am barely a "believer" and don't oppose gay marriage but your argument made no sense. No doubt you can find people opposing Mandela, Mother Teresa and even Einstein, so no doodles for them to be inclusive?
I'd prefer mega corporations staying out of social issues. Produce social value by making great products, not political advocacy.
This is an issue of direct relevance to many of those that work at Google. I think it's fine for corporations to take a stand on social issues that directly affect their employees.
You seem to be creating a mountain out of molehill. The design they have is targeted at certain searches - not on their main landing page.
During the holidays a holiday UI sometimes shows for [christmas] that has appropriate Christmas decorations
This was already on HN at the time: There is no agreement on a date for Easter.
Sure there is.
In fact, there are several agreements among different subsets of Christianity.
Christianity has over 2 billion "members" worldwide and Easter is a major holiday.
In short: not everything is about Jesus. Hopefully, this trend will continue.
I'm a Christian and I think it's cool when I see a religious and non-Christian theme. It helps to make me more aware of other religions and their holidays. You may think that's strange for a Christian, but it isn't actually. Just strange for the ones you hear from in the media.
Not sure if they are any doodles for Mohammed or Ramadan in Arabic and largely Muslim countries but I don't see why they should be any in countries where Islam barely registers. That applies to any other religion of course. Google would be insane to put a Christmas doodle in Pakistan, Indonesia or Saudi Arabia for example. Local sensitivities should apply.
>>In short: not everything is about Jesus. Hopefully, this trend will continue.
Like I said, this is Google's page but simply because they did it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Google surely loves to take boatload of adwords money for Easter and Christmas. Why do they respect local sensitivities when it comes to making money?
OTOH, why not? Spreading knowledge is usually a good thing...
As long as <non-local-religious/cultural-event X> doesn't conflict with something local, and isn't the sort of thing that raises local hackles (a few things do; most things, not really), why not show it, and teach some people a little thing about another culture...?
Of course, most people don't bother even if they aren't actually religious, so the Church still claims 80% of us are Catholic, even though many don't even get married in a religious ceremony anymore, much less attend mass.