Gay or Straight, Say No to 8! You like it? We just came up with that right now. Proposition 8 is titled “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act.” Wow. It’s like the writer of this act didn’t believe in the cause him/herself. To soften the blow, the proposition is sometimes known affectionately as “The Californian Marriage Protection Act.” Is there something we missed? Whose marriage does this act protect?

Google just blogged about their stance against Prop. 8. Google argues:

” … we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.”

Touching. It almost doesn’t seem right for a company to take a stance on such a personal issue, but apparently this particular proposition hit a little too close to home. Just how close? We’re dying to know. In the meantime, we think Google should decorate their logo on their start page with rainbows and queer wedding cake toppers.

Image Source: whorange under Creative Commons
Our position on California’s No on 8 campaign [Google blog]



Comments:
Karen Grube said:
Sep 29, 2008 at 5:37 pm

An Open Letter to Sergey Brin,

I just want you to know that the attack on Prop 8 you published in your corporate blog today was just too much. I know you don’t care, but you need to know this matters. I’ll never use Google again as my search engine. I’m removing all traces of Google from my computers, including the Google Desktop.

First of all, Prop 8 only seeks to restore the traditional definition of marriage which the voters approved in 2000 by over 60% with their vote on Prop 22, but which the California State Supreme Court improperly took away from us this past June. They never actually approved gay marriage. They didn’t have the right to do so because, according to the California State Constitution, only the Legislature has the right to pass laws. What the Supreme Court did do was find unconstitutional some individual statutes that were revised by Proposition 22. Their decision left a number of regulations and statutes still in state law which, if they had really meant to ‘approve’ gay marriage and this effort had been done correctly, would also have had to be revised. But they couldn’t do that because they are not the state’s law-making body and we have a very strict separation of powers here in California. In other words, ‘approving’ gay marriage can only legally be done either by the California State Legislature or by a vote of the electorate through a ballot initiative, not by the State Supreme Court. They don’t get to make law, which their decision improperly and incompletely attempted to do.

Second, you vastly underestimate the tremendous support for traditional marriage in this city. A couple months ago, within 24 hours of the announcement of so-called ‘boycott’ of the Manchester Hyatt Regency Hotel by a gay group that had been planning a demonstration for weeks because the owner of the hotel had donated money to support Proposition 8, proponents of Prop. 8 had gathered an equal number of supporters across the street to correct the misunderstandings about the ballot proposition that the other side was trying to spread.

In particular, you failed to mention that in the State of California, male-female couples can no longer be married as bride and groom. Not only do they have to fill out the marriage license form that now calls them “Party A” and “Party B,” but they can’t even have their marriage recorded with the State Office of Vital Records as Husband and Wife.

Most people are completely shocked to learn that a man and woman wishing to marry officially as husband and wife in California now are now forced to marry in some other state. Last month a couple in Placer County wrote “Bride” and “Groom” next to “Party A” and “Party B” on their marriage license form and it was rejected by the Office of Vital Records. To have their marriage recorded officially as bride and groom, they would have had to get married in some other state! That’s just plain ridiculous! A ‘Yes’ vote on Prop 8 would reverse this and allow couples to once again be married as husband and wife.

What’s next? Gender-neutral birth certificates? This has just plain gone too far. A ‘yes’ vote on Proposition 8 will simply restore the traditional view of marriage most Californians respect and want without reversing the gains in appropriate rights provided to gay couples by existing domestic partnership laws.

I challenge you to open up your blog to feedback from the public, RIGHT THERE, beneath the blog. Allow us to comment right there. I dare you to really hear what people think about your stand on this issue. You seemingly only want to hear from those who agree with you! How dumb is that? And the fact that you have no way for people to really respond is so typical of Google.

Karen Grube



adfadsf said:
Sep 29, 2008 at 8:52 pm

Karen Grube will probably never visit the clog again, but I just had to type…

“I’ll never use Google again as my search engine. I’m removing all traces of Google from my computers, including the Google Desktop.”

Sorry, this was all I saw. I bet in less than ten days, when she’ll need to find something on the internet, or look something up quickly and without the pain of ugly ads/crud floating around…google will come back to haunt her (or more, she’ll be haunting google). She has a google desktop thing…even I don’t use that, yet I use google’s search engine every single day. If she was as much of a fervid google person to use this thing, I highly doubt she can quit it cold turkey. And people who make likely-to-be-false proclamations that others have no way of making sure are stuck by, IMO, have questionable judgment.

LOL!!!

I did a google (I love google) on ‘karen grube’ and found a quote from her:
““We perceive what McDonald’s is doing as an attempt to somehow make gay marriage and the entire gay agenda more acceptable,” Grube said.”-http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:hK0DZW7P5TYJ:www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080728/news_1n28boycott.html+karen+grube+prop+8&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

gosh. so she’s against the ‘gay agenda’…i guess it’s no surprise she’s for prop 8, probably more so because of her homophobe tendencies than her beliefs that a traditional marriage can be the only acceptable standard.

“I challenge you to open up your blog to feedback from the public, RIGHT THERE, beneath the blog. Allow us to comment right there.”
Interestingly, there is no way to contact grube in return that is an open/public space itself. If you can’t get it right yourself…



adfadsf said:
Sep 29, 2008 at 8:57 pm

^that is SO COOL!!! (the text going off to the side).

i wonder what would happen if i did thissssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss



adfadsf said:
Sep 29, 2008 at 8:59 pm

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhooooooooooooooooooooollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyy

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaappppppppppppppppp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



jax said:
Oct 4, 2008 at 7:46 pm

The act was actually called something different. Atty gen. Jerry Brown changed it to the forward attack.



yaman said:
Oct 17, 2008 at 1:05 am

Ahhhh, not the gay agenda!!



ottawa adult dating said:
Mar 21, 2012 at 5:55 pm

I leave a response when I appreciate a article on a website or if I have something to valuable to contribute to the conversation. Usually it is a result of the passion communicated in the article I looked at. And after this post The Daily Clog » Google Wants Californians To Have the Freedom To Love. I was moved enough to post a comment :-P I do have a couple of questions for you if you don’t mind. Is it simply me or do some of these comments appear as if they are coming from brain dead visitors? :-P And, if you are posting at other social sites, I would like to keep up with you. Would you list all of your shared pages like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?



Conveyancing Quote said:
Mar 21, 2012 at 11:23 pm

UK Porperty Solicitors …

[...]while the sites we link to below are completely unrelated to ours, we think they are worth a read, so have a look[...]…



Immigration Lawyers said:
Mar 22, 2012 at 12:31 am

Immigration Lawyers…

[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]…



Christian Louboutin Outlet said:
Mar 22, 2012 at 9:53 am

Hey there! I’ve been reading your website for a long time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Houston Texas! Just wanted to say keep up the fantastic job!



Conveyancing Solicitors said:
Mar 22, 2012 at 2:35 pm

House Lawyers…

[...]just below, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth checking out[...]…



reverse phone said:
Mar 23, 2012 at 4:03 am

When I originally commented I clicked that the -Notify me when new surveys are added- checkbox and already each time a comment is added I discover four emails using that the same comment. Perhaps there is in any method you have been able to eliminate me out of that service? Thanks!