Reuters
Corporations urge Supreme Court to embrace gay marriage
Companies including Microsoft Corp, Google Inc, Starbucks Corp and Pfizer Inc are among those that joined the brief. Others included Aetna Inc, Amazon.com, Inc and Citigroup Inc.
Thomson Reuters Corp is another signatory. The Reuters news agency is part of Thomson Reuters.
The companies want the Supreme Court to strike down a key provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Separately, lawyers representing another group of employers, including some of the same companies, had said already that they planned to file a brief on Thursday in a related case that questions a California law that bans gay marriage.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
“Corporations urge Supreme Court to embrace gay marriage”
Yeah, wait until they have to pay for “spousal” health insurance for these couples and see if they sing the same tune then.
Opposite Day on February 27, 2013 at 3:23 PM
How about you just muster the support to change the law? If you position is so popular, why do you need judicial interference?
besser tot als rot on February 27, 2013 at 3:23 PM
We need to keep dirty filthy corporate money out of politics!1!!11!!
/libtards
gwelf on February 27, 2013 at 3:27 PM
Watch them make as many employees part-time as possible to avoid paying benefits anyway.
One more random thought: I guess corporations are people to the left when they support gay marriage.
mwbri on February 27, 2013 at 3:27 PM
My liberal friends have explained to me that large corporations are evil and greedy and should never be listened to.
Kataklysmic on February 27, 2013 at 3:28 PM
Why wouldn’t these Corporations urge the Supreme Court to embrace True Marriage Equality?
Why would these Corporations only advocate rights for a single group while deliberately excluding the same rights for others?
Come on, Microsoft, Google, Starbucks, Pfizer, Aetna, Amazon, Citigroup, and Thomson Reuters. Show us that you’re not too bigoted to support everyone’s right to marry as they please.
blink on February 27, 2013 at 3:34 PM
Did everyone forget that the case before the court is about the constitutionality of a ballot initiative?
nobar on February 27, 2013 at 3:39 PM
It’s not a matter of equality. It’s completely redefining marriage.
In What Is Marriage? the authors make the point that it’s a false assumption to say that any distinction with the law is unjust discrimination—it’s not automatically a matter of equality, rights, etc.
The basic question to be answered is what is marriage? That’s why Gergis, George, and Anderson, who I linked to yesterday, gave that title to their article and book.
We’re dealing with two views of marriage, the conjugal view—the historic view across time and culture—and the revisionist view beginning in the late 20th century.
It’s impossible for both views to simultaneously exist because the two definitions are diametrically opposed to each other.
INC on February 27, 2013 at 3:42 PM
I think SCOTUS is having hearings on marriage at the end of March. HA is stirring the pot on this.
I’ve seen other sites mention the ballot initiative.
INC on February 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM
IOW, no, I didn’t forget.
INC on February 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM
What does any of that have to do with these corporations arbitrarily deciding to support rights for one group while ignoring the same rights for other groups?
Their arguments easily apply to other groups, so why shouldn’t other groups be included?
blink on February 27, 2013 at 3:46 PM
Only the pro-gay people. They really think that a ruling in this case will establish SSM as a federal right.
Dr. Frank Enstine on February 27, 2013 at 3:51 PM
All of the named companies already do offer benefits for same-sex couples. Each of them has a 100% from the HRC.
ZachV on February 27, 2013 at 4:02 PM
Narcissistic hedonism is destroying this country.
Iblis on February 27, 2013 at 4:03 PM
Why only same-sex couples, and why only couples?
This pattern of discrimination needs to end.
blink on February 27, 2013 at 4:06 PM
I thought liberals believed large corporations should stay out of politics.
Oh. Just certain large corporations. Gotcha.
Xavier on February 27, 2013 at 4:16 PM
Prop 8 did not ban gay marriage. It banned the state from calling gay unions, which were legally recognized, marriage.
Rocks on February 27, 2013 at 4:21 PM
No surprises here. Corporate America is full of the fiscally conservative, socially liberal types.
Stoic Patriot on February 27, 2013 at 4:22 PM
Please, they just care about money… don’t delude yourself into believing that translates into “fiscal conservatism”.
ninjapirate on February 27, 2013 at 4:37 PM
Fair point.
Stoic Patriot on February 27, 2013 at 4:38 PM
It does not matter which corporate boards are full of social liberals or being made to act that way, it doesn’t matter which republicans favor gay marriage, the law of the country is that marriage is for one man and one woman, and that is the law of nature. Other marriages can never be equal, not with any contrivance or money paid for surgery, it is all false.
It would be better to stop the gay marriage craze and return to most people getting civil unions/allow a same sex civil union/partnership. Marriage is something different, it is something that requires heterosexual participation and will legally provide for offspring. We need to move closer to nature on this subject. And we need to “regulate” unmarried parents who are skipping marriage, to stop them from avoiding responsibility of parenthood. Address these, honestly and from the point of view of nature.
If you promote gay marriage the next demand will be marraige EQUALITY. Because their marriage is not equal to the procreative marriage of heterosexuals, and they will want society to provide them with children, and pretend both women or both men are the real parent.
Fleuries on February 27, 2013 at 5:10 PM
Any exceptions for people who cannot afford to spawn, or are you gonna take the position of Ozerocare, breeder tyrant?
MelonCollie on February 27, 2013 at 5:15 PM
That is of course all this debate is about, forcing the acceptance of homosexual relationships as morally equal to natural, heterosexual ones.
This is why they will never accept civil unions even if legally equal in terms of inheritance, benefits, and a host of other legal decisions currently reserved to spouses. They don’t seek legal equality, which many conservatives would grudgingly accept, they seek and demand moral equivalence. They view anything less as being relegated to second class citizenship.
With government sanctioned gay marriage will come government labeling of all those opposed as bigots. Tens of millions of Christians will be labeled bigots by their own government and likely targeted by a radicalized DOJ.
Deny homosexuals their “equal” rights at your peril.
Charlemagne on February 27, 2013 at 5:57 PM
Uncertainty (e.g., in estimating expected spousal benefits) costs money, big time, for these corps.
Offices in multiple states makes unified corporate policy more difficult.
etc etc etc
Voting takes too long: they want it settled NOW.
These would be their internal arguments, aside from the natural inclinations of the left-leaners running the companies (conservative employees generally keep their mouths shut and their Facebook neutral).
I’m not sure what form the Law of Unintended Consequences (aka Gods of the Copybook Headings) will take when it hits them, but hit them it will.
AesopFan on February 28, 2013 at 12:05 AM