NOM BLOG

Google's Idea of a Valentine to Gay Marriage

 

From today's Google doodle to celebrate Valentine's Day:

Personally we'd hesitate to make some of these analogies!

Watch the full cartoon here.

32 Comments

  1. Reformed
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps only fish and birds shouldn't be allowed to marry, where would they live?

  2. some guy
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Those bigots! Couldn't they show any support for the big love of polyandry or polygamy? Still stuck in the monogamous past?

  3. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Let's see, inanimate objects, inter-species, same-sex. I guess Google sees them as all being the same.

    I just love my new shoes. Maybe I'll marry them. I doubt my husband will mind.

  4. SC Guy
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    Google is so liberal that they'll celebrate the birthday of some very off the wall, obscure thing but on Veteran's Day, all they'll do is put a tiny little American flag down in the corner of their page. They border on anti-American, imo.

  5. Ash
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    A chocolate cookie with chocolate milk? Now that's just plain ol' ridiculous. We have to draw the line somewhere.

  6. Posted February 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Google conveniently forgets that the princess first kissed the frog, but only married him after he turned into a prince. :)

  7. The.Truth
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Well Some guy, polygamy is mainly an ancient religious tradition that its only still practiced by some who still cling to that. It goes against our modern notions of marriage as a union between equals.

    Furthermore trying to compare marriage equality to polygamy is like comparing apples to watermelons.

  8. The.Truth
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    This does beg some questions though.

    Does NOM oppose the use of the word marriage in other contexts? Like saying Reeces peanut butter cups are the perfect marriage between peanut butter and chocolate?

    If we one day discover intelligent aliens, would NOM oppose marriage between a human and an alien,or only if the alien and human are of the same gender?

  9. Apollonia
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    As good religious people they would kill all aliens in the name of god.

  10. Publius
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    “still practiced by some”

    Polygamy is legal in most of Africa, huge swaths of Asia, and recognized if performed abroad in the UK and Australia. There are about 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and their numbers are growing rapidly in the U.S. and Europe. There are far more legal polygamous families than same sex unions.

    Polygamy does not require redefining the traditional definitions of husband and wife, mother and father. SSM does. Polygamy is less radical than SSM. SSM is the outlier both now and historically.

    Polygamy is truly banned with draconian punishments.

    Polygamists are politically powerless and hence a suspect class.

    Polygamy is an ancient religious tradition. That fact should not justify animus or be a rational grounds for prohibiting it.

    “It goes against our modern notions of marriage as a union between equals.” Of course, “modern notions” are a weak ground for animus sufficient to ban polygamy, assuming the marriage is consensual and among adults.

    Siince men can impregnate women and not vice versa, heterosexual marriage always includes a biological inequality. If marriage requires only biological equals then only SSM can be that. As for a legal inequality, there is no reason why a threesome can’t have legal equality as well as a twosome. The law can treat two as well as three. A corporation can have three equal partners. Once marriage is de-gendered, the law will only recognize “spouses” or “partners.” A polygamous family will then have three or more spouses or partners, but no husbands or wives.

    Once you discard traditional definitions, legal precedent, and the popular will, and buy the legal arguments for SSM, it is hard to make a legal case against polygamy.

  11. yoshi
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    "Google is so liberal that they'll celebrate the birthday of some very off the wall, obscure thing but on Veteran's Day, all they'll do is put a tiny little American flag down in the corner of their page. They border on anti-American, imo."

    God forbid a company celebrates science, history, or literature.

  12. The.Truth
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    In the modern industrialized western world polygamy is far from a growing phenomena, as it is almost exclusively an arrangement of 1 man with multiple wives, who are subjectively and objectively unequal to their husband.

    Same-gender marriage equality simply removes the constitutionally impermissible restriction on gender. Every other aspect of every other marriage related law remains the same. This cannot be said for polygamy, which would require countless and complex changes to existing law as well as new laws to be written.

    The Constitution provides for equal treatment of any written law to all citizens regardless of their individual characteristics, unless a rational justification can be given to do otherwise. The Constitution DOES NOT mandate that any written law must include any number of individuals. Number of people is not a characteristic of an individual protected by the constitution, so laws can be written that restrict the number of people in a marriage to two.

  13. The.Truth
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    You must admit this was a pretty cute video though and the likes far exceed the dislikes on youtube. Yes it's the internet and that's an unscientific poll, but the overwhelming disparity has got to tell you something.

  14. Publius
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    The Constitution DOES NOT mandate that any written law must be sex blind. The ERA did not pass. Far from being “constitutionally impermissible,” the definition of marriage as consisting of one man and one women was upheld by the Supreme Court in Murphy v. Ramsey and praised by the court in the highest possible terms. Of course, overthrowing Murphy v. Ramsey would have a huge effect on polygamy cases.

    De-gendering marriage will require the countless changes in family law. Not just passports will be de-gendered. All documents will become legally de-gendered. All marriage law must then become sex blind, otherwise the law would view opposite sex and same sex couples differently. Parenting will become “social parenting” so that the child in a household of two lesbians will be the child of both even in the absence of adoption and biological parentage. The changes will be incremental but sweeping. The presumption of parenthood in the family will be overthrown since marriage will increasingly be defined as being unrelated to childbearing.

    Polygamists are a suspect class if there ever was one. You are happy to throw them under your bus because of the prejudice against them. Lots of foreigners and Africans are polygamous, but that doesn’t excuse the prejudice, it makes it worse. Your characterization of a polygamous family as incompatible with industrial society is simply a prejudice and a stereotype. Remember the Iowa Supreme Court discarded traditional marriage attitudes as merely a stereotype unworthy of judicial attention.

    Your argument that marriages where wives are “subjectively and objectively unequal to their husbands” should be banned would also ban monogamous marriages in patriarchal families, i.e. all virtually all Muslim marriages and many other traditional marriages (see “love, honor and obey” wedding vows). You are really into banning marriages you don’t like. Your concept of marriage would not only redefine marriage, it would de-marry millions of monogamous couple if the wife believed she should be obedient to her husband.

  15. M. Jones
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    re: "Polygamists are politically powerless and hence a suspect class." Sadly polygamy fails the immutable characteristic prong of the suspect class test.

  16. The.Truth
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Indeed M. Jones, polygamy is not an immutable characteristic of an individual, unlike gender and as a growing body of evidence is showing, unlike sexual-orientation.

    Individual characteristics are not generally a valid basis for discrimination in equal treatment of the laws as mandated by the 14th amendment. No such Constitutional protection exists for how many people can join in any particular contact.

  17. Publius
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    Yes, you could force a Muslim to renounce his religious beliefs over marriage. In that sense religion is not immutable, but it should be protected. Is it fair that they be denied protection? Why should a sexual proclivity, which is not an innumerated right, be given protection not available to a numerated right? A Muslim might argue that they were born Muslim. They were born that way. It is immutable in the sense that national origin is immutable. And it is part of their deepest identity. Are you into denying religious freedom while upholding sexual freedom? This does not strike me as just.

    Yes, a woman who was legally married in, say Saudi Arabia, could be legally de-married when she crosses a state boundary, but is that rational? What public interest does it serve, assuming, of course, she still wants to be married?

  18. Publius
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Gays fail the politically powerless test, one of the other prongs. To suggest gays are politically powerless in California is a joke.

  19. Publius
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

    Let us consider the rational interest test. Note that when marriage is de-gendered, marriage becomes merely a economic contract, unconnected with procreation or sex. What rational basis can there be for banning anyone entry into a legal economic contract, especially if that ban targets a religious group? Under contract law, parties should be free to enter into any legal contract, and legality must be based on rationality not bias against a politically powerless group.

  20. Son of Adam
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    This is one of the reasons why I use bing.com instead.

  21. QueerNE
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    I am confused as to why this was considered a threat. Legitmately confused.

  22. Little man
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    Here's The.Truth (hilarious) :0 - 'Furthermore trying to compare marriage equality to polygamy is like comparing apples to watermelons.' Yes, they are both 'fruits'. Who is comparing? It follows logically, without comparison, if marriage is only about love..

  23. Mr. Incredible
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    ==This is one of the reasons why I use bing.com instead.==

    Interesting. I didn't think of that.

  24. Publius
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

    See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15032947 where a Muslin with two wives argues:

    "God has created us the way we are, that mankind desires more in wealth in sexual desires"

    This is the born that way argument. One could argue that the man should restrain his sexual proclivities, but when did the LGBT lobby ever argue that?

  25. QueerNE
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    That's an excellent misrepresentation of the position, Little man. Good work.

  26. Little man
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 2:57 am | Permalink

    I won't look at the cartoon, but looks like it is about friendship, not marriage. Who can disagree the definition of 'friendship'? Yeah, Google employees are 'married' to their computers. They'll be wearing thicker and thicker eye glasses.

  27. The.Truth
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 3:41 am | Permalink

    Bing.com is Microsoft's search engine. You know the same Microsoft which is putting its support behind the Washington State marriage equality legislation.

    Soooo.... I think you guys are going to run out of companies to do business with. Every year more and more companies achieve HRC's 100 rating for their gay rights and inclusivity policies.

  28. The.Truth
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 4:23 am | Permalink

    Pub, are you suggesting that gay people merely need to make being gay a religion to achieve protected status?

    Religion is not an immutable trait. Nobody is born a particular religion, that is something which is clearly instilled in a person and something millions of people change every year. The overwhelming body of research and evidence tells us that sexual orientation is something which is an unchosen and deeply ingrained aspect of WHO a person is. And who will deny that our minds are as much who we are, if not more so, than what's between our legs?

    I hope you know, believe, and understand that marriage is about WAY more than sex. It's not now, not has it ever been simply about sex or procreation, even while those are important and valuable aspects of why a couple may choose to marry.

    As to your attempts at suggesting that same gender marriage equality will open the door to polygamy, I and the Canadian Supreme Court disagree. The arguments for one have nothing to do with the other. And in America as far as the Constitution goes, restrictions on gender, without valid cause, are impermissible while restrictions on number are permissible.

  29. JeremiahA
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    It's disappointing to see Google celebrating same-sex marriage. A loving society never intentionally creates fatherless or motherless families, yet same-sex marriage does in every case.

    Could not Google find enough love in their hearts for children? Why does this company want to automatically deny a child a mother or a father?

    Google, please truly endorse love by endorsing marriage.

    Let love rule...!

  30. Leo
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    Google, and Microsolft are monopolies base organizations... Stay away from those companies with its philosophy-" give them what they want, and they will give up their land"... By assuming they are necessities, they will attempt to control you...

    The Truth, all we have to do is to stop making those businesses relevant, and they will eventually fall... No business is too big to fail-Boycotting is a powerful too if organized properly...

    We need to start a movement and work hard towards the ultiminate goal.

  31. Ken Cauld
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    So this was a hit with everyone but NOM. So?

  32. Son of Adam
    Posted February 16, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    "The Truth" I have only three things to say concerning the claim that homosexuality is "immutable."

    http://www.pfox.org

    http://www.exodusinternational.org

    http://www.peoplecanchange.com