Just wanted to share a news item that I found interesting.
Apple Computers has publicly stated their opposition to Proposition 8. In a era where corporations frequently support or oppose political issues in secret, I’m happy to see a big corporation like Apple express an opinion on a still-contentious issue: gay marriage in the USA.
Here’s the background on Prop 8:
Sadly, gay marriage is still an impossibility in most US states. However, California deemed gay marriage to be valid and constitutional on June 17, 2008. Now there is an initiative measure called Proposition 8 intended to remove this right and define marriage as “one women and one man.”
I’m not impressed by the new MacBook Pros (so I’ll wait a few more months for a new computer), but I am impressed by Apple’s choice to take a civil and political stand.
This announcement provides a good example of corporate values reaching beyond a business’s space. Apple reinforces its brand with this move—they are progressive and human(e)—but not, directly, their bottom line. Marketing professors could write papers on the risks and potential benefits of Apple’s political stand; I’m simply happy to see a corporation doing something, no matter how small, that seems good and authentic.
Here’s a quote directly from Apple’s site:
No on Prop 8 (October 24, 2008)
Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. 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. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.
Sorry Leif,
You are not impressed by them taking a stand as much as you are by the fact that they are using their power to support your warped thinking. Would you be as impressed if their suport went the other way? Maintaining the biblical and traditional definition of marriage does not take away gay peoples rights to co-habitation, etc. etc. and whatever else they want to do and legal rights they want to achieve as a committed couple. (BTW, does it have to be a couple? How about three or four or more and include the pets and call it marriage.)
Hi Gary,
Thanks for commenting on the blog. Of course, I am supportive of Apple’s position, which affects my opinion on their action. If they went the other way (eg. support for Proposition 8), I would still be interested in their announcement as a news item and as an example of a corporation getting involved in the civil/political sphere, although I doubt I would respond favourably.
Like Canada, the question of gay marriage relates to the state, not the church. For better or worse, the state is in the business of marriage, making marriage a legal and civil issue, not a moral one. Many things are legal that people would consider immoral, such as gambling, pornography, or alcohol. With that in mind, I do not see any legal reason to oppose gay marriage. Religions can continue to define marriage as narrowly or as broadly as they want and should continue to have freedom to perform ceremonies for people of their religion (for example, a non-consenting Muslim cleric should never be legally required to perform a ceremony for two men). The biblical understanding of marriage should not define the laws of the state—I’m sure neither of us would want to live in a country governed by strict Islamic law.
Lastly, marriage being an issue of the state, I think the legal argument for gay marriage does open the door to consider polygamy. This would challenge how the government treats the taxes for these groups people, but I’m certain we’ll see constitutional polygamy cases. That said, I think marrying plants, animals, or other items would never be considered legal, as none of these can be considered consenting.
Take care,
Leif
A wonderful reply, Leif. Truly.
c.