Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Silicon Valley Opposes Prop 8

Timothy Kincaid

November 1st, 2008

Per All Things Digital, an ad will run tomorrow in the San Jose Mercury News with an appeal from leaders in the Silicon Valley to vote No on Proposition 8. In addition to lending their name, many have also financially contributed to oppose the discriminatory effort. The list of individuals participating represents some of the brightest and best in the tech and internet industry.

The Honorary Co-Chairs of the effort are (titles and logos for identification purposes only):

Sergey Brin, Co-Founder, Google
(contributed $100,000; Co-Founder Larry Page contributed $40,000)
Eric Schmidt, CEO, Google


Bill Campbell, Chairman, Intuit
Intuit makes Quicken, QuickBooks and TurboTax


David Filo, Founder, Yahoo
(contributed $15,000)
Jerry Yang, Founder, Yahoo
(contributed $30,000)


Chuck Geschke, Founder and Chairman, Adobe Systems
(contributed $5,000)
Adobe products include Acrobat, Flash, and Photoshop


John Morgridge, Former CEO and Chairman, Cisco Systems
Cisco is the leading supplier of networking equipment and network management for the Internet


Pierre Omidyar, Founder and Chairman, eBay


Sheryl Sandberg, COO, Facebook

In addition to the chairs of the committee, leaders listed in the ad include Barry Cinnamon, CEO, Akeena Solar; Sue Decker, President, Yahoo!; Jack Dorsey, Chairman, Twitter; Evan Williams, CEO, Twitter; Jeff Hawkins, co-Founder Palm, Handspring, and Numenta; Donna Dubinsky, CEO, Numenta; Ken McNeely, President, AT&T California; Susan Packard Orr, CEO, Telosa Software; Amy Rao, Founder & CEO, Integrated Archive Systems; and many many others.

(hat tip www.goodasyou.org)

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

El Rose
November 1st, 2008 | LINK

NOTE: The authenticity of the commenter’s identity is in dispute. We are currently trying to clear up whether this comment was actually left by Maggie Gallagher — Jim Burroway]

—Why do I care so much about protecting the legal definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife? Many people who disagree with me ask me this. (“How will it affect your marriage?”)

Here’s my short answer in the Los Angeles Times on Saturday. A somewhat longer answer is up on The Public Discourse, the Witherspoon Institute’s rather interesting new webzine, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com

The future of marriage, for better or worse, will be determined on Tuesday in California (with important votes as well in Florida and Arizona).

This is why I care.

Best,
Maggie

*****************************************

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-gallagher1-2008nov01,0,5151041.story
Why ‘yes’ on Proposition 8?
‘Biology, not bigotry’ is the foundation for the traditional form of marriage.
By Maggie Gallagher
November 1, 2008
As I travel across California and the country making the case for Proposition 8, I’m often asked, “Why do you care about restoring marriage?”

It’s a good question, and not just for me. Why are so many Californians rushing to street corners to hold up “Yes on 8″ signs, enduring petty vandalism, and even pettier insults, to make the case for voting yes on Proposition 8?

It’s simple: Government did not create marriage. Marriage is older than the U.S. Constitution, older even than the Bible or the Koran. Marriage’s deepest roots are in human nature and human experience. Marriage, as a judge on the Connecticut Supreme Court wrote in his compelling dissent to that court’s recent ruling allowing gays to wed, is rooted “in biology, not bigotry.”

Marriage is a virtually universal human social institution with a certain recognizable shape: It is a public union, not just a private union; it’s a sexual union and not some other kind of union; it’s a union in which the rights and responsibilities of men and women toward each other — and toward the children of their union — are publicly defined and supported, not merely left up to individuals to figure out privately.

Why do so many diverse societies arrive at this core marriage idea? There is something special about unions of husband and wife.

The answer is not hard to see. When a baby is born, a mother is bound to be somewhere close by. But if we want fathers to be there for children, and the mothers of their children, biology alone will not take us very far. We need a cultural mechanism to connect fathers to the mother-child bond. We also need an institution that communicates to the next generation — in the throes of its own erotic and romantic dramas — how seriously society takes the need to discipline those dramas so that children do not get hurt.

The word for the way society makes this connection, not only in California but in virtually every known human society, is “marriage.” Marriage is a union of husband and wife because these kinds of unions are distinctive and necessary to the whole society.

If Californians vote no on Proposition 8, the great historical cross-cultural meaning of marriage will be replaced by the new government dogma on which gay marriage is based: There is no difference between same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions; anyone who thinks otherwise is just a bigot.

Our children will imbibe this new dogma in hundreds of ways, and the old marriage idea — marriage matters because children need a mother and a father, long for a mother and a father, deserve a mother and a father — will be publicly discredited as discriminatory.

A victory for Proposition 8 will not deprive same-sex couples of a single practical right or benefit under California state laws. Civil unions will continue to provide legal protections for same-sex families. But the people of California will reclaim from four state Supreme Court justices the right to define marriage as a union of husband and wife, for generations to come.

Maggie Gallagher is president of the National Organization for Marriage, which is a major contributor to the “Yes on 8″ campaign. To help NOM’s important work, you can contribute here.

AJD
November 1st, 2008 | LINK

So let’s see, El Rose, you post an opinion column from the LA Times out of apparent inability to construct an original argument and fail to notice the utterly illogical basis of Ms. Gallagher’s argumentation.

First, she’s using the good ol’ “argument from tradition,” which is a classic logical fallacy. Second, and related to that, she apparently doesn’t realize that the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is by no means universal (polygamy, anyone? how about same-sex marriages in ancient Greece and China?) Third, she overlooks the fact that study after study after study has shown that while the best environment for a child is with his or her biological parents, gay and lesbian couples are just as capable of caring for children. Fourth, like everyone else, she fails to point to an example of legalized same-sex marriage causing some slew of social problems.

Consider your argument (well, not really YOUR argument) refuted.

AJD
November 1st, 2008 | LINK

Never mind, I didn’t notice your name in the posting. I guess it is your argument, then. Nevertheless, it’s still an ignorant argument with little basis in fact.

Timothy Kincaid
November 1st, 2008 | LINK

El Rose,

Are you claiming to be Maggie Gallagher or are you another Maggie?

AJD
November 1st, 2008 | LINK

I was mistaken about that, too. It appears this is Maggie Gallagher, as she refers to “my short answer” in the LA Times.

Jim Burroway
November 2nd, 2008 | LINK

The email address and other information left as part of “El Rose’s” comment does not match the public information we have for Maggie Gallagher. This doesn’t mean that this isn’t Ms. Gallagher; it merely calls the commenter’s identity into question. Therefore “El Rose” is in moderation pending confirmation of her identity.

We would certainly welcome comments from Maggie Gallagher since she has been an important part of the debates. We do not, however, allow repetition of third-party articles — mostly for copyright purposes, but also because we expect comments posted at Box Turtle Bulletin to be those of the commenters themselves — as clearly stated in our comments policy..

Furthermore, we cannot allow anyone to impersonate another person. If “El Rose” isn’t Maggie Gallagher, then there are other comments which have now been linked to her which may or may not actually reflect her opinions. As it is, we don’t know.

So if “El Rose” is actually Maggie Gallagher, then welcome to the party! We’re happy to have you join us.

But if “El Rose” isn’t Maggie Gallagher, then she will be permanently banned. Until then, she is on strict moderation until this is all sorted out.

Ben in Oakland
November 4th, 2008 | LINK

El Rose is not MG, i’m fairly certain. MG is a lot smarter than ER, tohugh their arguments are similar– and as nauseatingly inaccurate.

Timothy Kincaid
November 4th, 2008 | LINK

Ben, you are correct. Maggie Gallagher has confirmed that she is not the person using the sceenname El Rose.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.