• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Dozens of Companies Back Gay Marriage

A

Anonymous

Guest
Dozens of big U.S. companies to back gay marriage

Posted: Feb 26, 2013 7:50 PM by Roger Parloff


FORTUNE -- On Thursday, dozens of American corporations, including Apple, Alcoa, Facebook, eBay, Intel, and Morgan Stanley will submit an amicus brief in the landmark Hollingsworth v. Perry case broadly arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that laws banning same-sex marriages, like California's ballot initiative Proposition 8, are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

According to a draft copy obtained by Fortune, the companies argue that such laws "send an unmistakeable signal that same-sex couples are in some way inferior to opposite-sex couples, a proposition that is anathema to amici's commitment to equality and fair treatment to all."

At least 60 companies had committed to signing the brief as of Tuesday evening, according to Joshua Rosenkranz, who is counsel of record on the brief and head of the Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. That number is expected to rise by Thursday, however, according to Rosenkranz. Others who have already committed to sign include AIG, Becton Dickinson, Cisco, Cummins, Kimpton, Levi Strauss, McGraw Hill, NCR, Nike, Office Depot, Oracle, Panasonic, Qualcomm, and Xerox.



Though the brief adopts by reference all of the arguments of the main brief challenging the constitutionality of Prop 8-filed last week by Theodore Olson of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner-it also argues that "recognizing the rights of same-sex couples to marry is more than a constitutional issue. It is a business imperative."

Fleshing out that contention, the companies argue: "By singling out a group for less favorable treatment, Proposition 8 impedes businesses from achieving the market's ideal of efficient operations-particularly in recruiting, hiring, and retaining talented people who are in the best position to operate at their highest capacity. Amici are competing domestically and internationally with companies inside and outside the United States in places where all couples, regardless of whether they are of the same sex, are afforded equal access to marriage."

Specifically, it suggests that when "potential recruits or employees are members of a same-sex couple," they "may forgo the opportunity to work in California, and prefer other states (like Iowa, New York and Massachusetts) or other nations (like Spain, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, or Belgium) where they can be married and obtain equal treatment and respect under the law."



Laws like Prop 8 "leave companies in the untenable position of being compelled implicitly to endorse the second-class status to which their gay and lesbian employees, clients, customers, and business associates are relegated," the brief argues. "Until the law no longer relegates same-sex couples to second-class status as inferior "domestic partnerships," our adherence to the law compels us to abide by a distinction that stigmatizes and dehumanizes gay men and lesbians."

In an apparent effort to avoid giving offense to customers, vendors, and employees who may favor prohibitions against gay marriage, the brief states in a footnote that the signatory companies "do not mean to suggest" that such laws are the "product of ill will" on anyone's part.

Finally, leaving no stone unturned, the draft brief argues that "increased wedding celebrations can mean additional revenue for many businesses-such as businesses involved directly in wedding celebrations, businesses that produce goods often given as gifts to newlyweds, and businesses that benefit from increased tourism from guests who travel to the wedding."
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Dozens of big U.S. companies to back gay marriage

Posted: Feb 26, 2013 7:50 PM by Roger Parloff


FORTUNE -- On Thursday, dozens of American corporations, including Apple, Alcoa, Facebook, eBay, Intel, and Morgan Stanley will submit an amicus brief in the landmark Hollingsworth v. Perry case broadly arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that laws banning same-sex marriages, like California's ballot initiative Proposition 8, are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

According to a draft copy obtained by Fortune, the companies argue that such laws "send an unmistakeable signal that same-sex couples are in some way inferior to opposite-sex couples, a proposition that is anathema to amici's commitment to equality and fair treatment to all."

At least 60 companies had committed to signing the brief as of Tuesday evening, according to Joshua Rosenkranz, who is counsel of record on the brief and head of the Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. That number is expected to rise by Thursday, however, according to Rosenkranz. Others who have already committed to sign include AIG, Becton Dickinson, Cisco, Cummins, Kimpton, Levi Strauss, McGraw Hill, NCR, Nike, Office Depot, Oracle, Panasonic, Qualcomm, and Xerox.



Though the brief adopts by reference all of the arguments of the main brief challenging the constitutionality of Prop 8-filed last week by Theodore Olson of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner-it also argues that "recognizing the rights of same-sex couples to marry is more than a constitutional issue. It is a business imperative."

Fleshing out that contention, the companies argue: "By singling out a group for less favorable treatment, Proposition 8 impedes businesses from achieving the market's ideal of efficient operations-particularly in recruiting, hiring, and retaining talented people who are in the best position to operate at their highest capacity. Amici are competing domestically and internationally with companies inside and outside the United States in places where all couples, regardless of whether they are of the same sex, are afforded equal access to marriage."

Specifically, it suggests that when "potential recruits or employees are members of a same-sex couple," they "may forgo the opportunity to work in California, and prefer other states (like Iowa, New York and Massachusetts) or other nations (like Spain, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, or Belgium) where they can be married and obtain equal treatment and respect under the law."



Laws like Prop 8 "leave companies in the untenable position of being compelled implicitly to endorse the second-class status to which their gay and lesbian employees, clients, customers, and business associates are relegated," the brief argues. "Until the law no longer relegates same-sex couples to second-class status as inferior "domestic partnerships," our adherence to the law compels us to abide by a distinction that stigmatizes and dehumanizes gay men and lesbians."

In an apparent effort to avoid giving offense to customers, vendors, and employees who may favor prohibitions against gay marriage, the brief states in a footnote that the signatory companies "do not mean to suggest" that such laws are the "product of ill will" on anyone's part.

Finally, leaving no stone unturned, the draft brief argues that "increased wedding celebrations can mean additional revenue for many businesses-such as businesses involved directly in wedding celebrations, businesses that produce goods often given as gifts to newlyweds, and businesses that benefit from increased tourism from guests who travel to the wedding."

[/b]Somebody's :roll: penis must be tingling over this to post it..... :shock:
 

Mike

Well-known member
So. Companies are "Pro-Gay Marriage" because of money, more revenue.

Nothing surprising or spectacular about that.

We'll see if SCOTUS will allow that as good enough reason.
 

Mike

Well-known member
He made headlines around the world and became known as "the pregnant man" - a transgender man who gave birth in Bend - and now an Arizona judge will decide if he can get a divorce and keep his children.

Beatie filed for divorce from his wife Nancy Beatie and they were in court this week in Arizona, according to TV station KTVK.

Thomas Beatie started life as a woman and had three children, but has been living as a man since the late '90s.

He first came into the public eye in 2007 when pictures of him, pregnant and bearded, made headlines.

He kept his reproductive organs when he had a sex change operation in 1998, the New York Daily News reported.

Beatie had been living in Bend with his wife and their three kids until death threats forced the family to live in seclusion, said the paper last year.

His wife of more than a decade legally adopted the kids.

Now, the two are headed toward divorce and want the court to decide who will keep the children.

Thomas Beatie alleged domestic violence in court, while Nancy Beatie said her husband is doing everything he can to make her struggle.

The problem facing the Arizona judge is whether the union is a same-sex marriage, based on Thomas Beatie's transgender status. If that's the case, the state of Arizona doesn't recognize same-sex unions and a divorce may not be granted.

A decision by the court is expected later this month.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supporters_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States


See a trend here?? 99.9% of them have a (D) after their name.
 

katrina

Well-known member
Mike said:
He made headlines around the world and became known as "the pregnant man" - a transgender man who gave birth in Bend - and now an Arizona judge will decide if he can get a divorce and keep his children.

Beatie filed for divorce from his wife Nancy Beatie and they were in court this week in Arizona, according to TV station KTVK.

Thomas Beatie started life as a woman and had three children, but has been living as a man since the late '90s.

He first came into the public eye in 2007 when pictures of him, pregnant and bearded, made headlines.

He kept his reproductive organs when he had a sex change operation in 1998, the New York Daily News reported.

Beatie had been living in Bend with his wife and their three kids until death threats forced the family to live in seclusion, said the paper last year.

His wife of more than a decade legally adopted the kids.

Now, the two are headed toward divorce and want the court to decide who will keep the children.

Thomas Beatie alleged domestic violence in court, while Nancy Beatie said her husband is doing everything he can to make her struggle.

The problem facing the Arizona judge is whether the union is a same-sex marriage, based on Thomas Beatie's transgender status. If that's the case, the state of Arizona doesn't recognize same-sex unions and a divorce may not be granted.

A decision by the court is expected later this month.

Well that's real simple to figure out...Any rancher could rule on this one...
 

Traveler

Well-known member
katrina said:
Mike said:
He made headlines around the world and became known as "the pregnant man" - a transgender man who gave birth in Bend - and now an Arizona judge will decide if he can get a divorce and keep his children.

Beatie filed for divorce from his wife Nancy Beatie and they were in court this week in Arizona, according to TV station KTVK.

Thomas Beatie started life as a woman and had three children, but has been living as a man since the late '90s.

He first came into the public eye in 2007 when pictures of him, pregnant and bearded, made headlines.

He kept his reproductive organs when he had a sex change operation in 1998, the New York Daily News reported.

Beatie had been living in Bend with his wife and their three kids until death threats forced the family to live in seclusion, said the paper last year.

His wife of more than a decade legally adopted the kids.

Now, the two are headed toward divorce and want the court to decide who will keep the children.

Thomas Beatie alleged domestic violence in court, while Nancy Beatie said her husband is doing everything he can to make her struggle.

The problem facing the Arizona judge is whether the union is a same-sex marriage, based on Thomas Beatie's transgender status. If that's the case, the state of Arizona doesn't recognize same-sex unions and a divorce may not be granted.

A decision by the court is expected later this month.

Well that's real simple to figure out...Any rancher could rule on this one...
I suspect that the number of Democrat men with female reproductive organs is actually quite high.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Top Republicans urge court to support gay marriage


Catalina Camia, USA TODAY 4p.m. EST February 26, 2013



WASHINGTON — Top Republicans, including veterans of the George W. Bush administration, former members of Congress and ex-governors, are calling on the Supreme Court to support same-sex marriage.

More than 80 prominent leaders will file a friend of the court brief this week in advance of the justices hearing oral arguments in two gay marriage cases. These Republicans are essentially saying gay couples have a constitutional right to marry and want the court to strike down California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage.


The signers currently include former governors Jon Huntsman of Utah, Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey and William Weld of Massachusetts; former White House chief of staff Ken Mehlman and former national security adviser Stephen Hadley; and retired members of Congress, such as Mary Bono Mack of California and Deborah Pryce of Ohio.

Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman is also on record as backing the legal brief, which is a change of her previous position. When she ran unsuccessfully for California governor in 2010, Whitman supported Proposition 8. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., is the only active member of the House currently listed as supporting the brief.


The friend of the court brief is being organized by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the advocacy group that is challenging the California ballot measure, which has already been struck down by two lower courts.

The group helped put together the legal team that is challenging Proposition 8, which was headed by former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson and David Boies, best known as the lawyer who handled the 2000 Florida recount challenge for Al Gore.

"The conservative movement toward the freedom to marry is what we like to call the 'Ted Olson effect,'" said Adam Umhoefer, executive director of the organization. "We value the support of our conservative colleagues and welcome their voices to the growing majority of Americans who stand for marriage equality."

The Supreme Court will hear arguments March 26 and March 27 in a pair of same-sex marriage cases. Many briefs have been filed challenging Prop 8, in part because the high court's ruling could have far-reaching impact beyond California on the right of gay men and lesbians to marry.

The other case before the Supreme Court deals with the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The case applies to the benefits available to gay couples that are already married.

Looks to me like some Republican leadership is thinking the same way...
Maybe some realize that the only way they can keep the Party from going the way of the dinosaur is to bring their thinking into the 21st century...

This group could pack a lot of influence with the court- especially when you have it being argued by a former Solicitor General (Ted Olson)... That position is thought of by the legal circuit as the 10th Justice..
 

littlejoe

Well-known member
I've never considered it any of my business what 2 consenting adults do in their own bedroom.

Ditto on who marries who, 'equal protection under the law" and spousal benefits are spousal benefits, far as i'm concerned.

But--the plural marriage deal--that's intriguing! Got a tie vote on that one so far, but wife is considering it--says it's the last vote that'd be tied, if we go for it---evidently, the first item to be voted on would be "is the Mr. a certified horses ass" or somesuch. havn't seen the ballot, kinda lost interest.....
 
Top