Apple picks sides in California marriage debate

Gay and lesbian workers are one thing, but there are flaws in equal protection when the definition of marriage was around long before a definition of equal protection was. Apparently there is a flaw in "equal protection." If not, then we have to make males and females the same--which we know is not the case.
Stick to electronic products.

I agree in that Apple needs to stay as far away from politics as they possibly can. Any position they ever take will always end up alienating some of their customers so it's best to just stay out. Of course adding Al Gore to the board showed where Apple stands enough as it is anyway.

There are some things not worth having an opinion about. If two people want to get married, what difference does it matter?

Heterosexuals are doing a fine job on their own ruining the institute of marriage, let's give someone else a try.

The whole concept of "banning" types of marriage seems ridiculous, and a means of keeping our focus off of more important issues.

If you get skeeved out by watching two guys in love, keep it to yourself. It really is none of your business.

I don't necessarily agree with Apple being an open advocate of this (again, who cares...), but I would assume, based upon their workforce and headquarters, there may have been some internal pressure.

Now go home and hug your children and family and friends. That's what really matters :)

Just one more reason to support apple!

So then, Apple ought to be in favor of polygamy and extend benefits to those men and women in such plural marriages (or similar arrangements since they are also banned by law). The whole marriage equality thing as currently argued is hypocritical in it's apparent defense of two partner marriages even though it is clearly not the only way to be "married."

See, I knew I liked Apple. I agree, though, that entering into these issues can be dangerous sometimes. After all, I used to like Ditka. I also used to like Zucker movies.

That said, I'm personally happy to see that Apple is on the right side of this. We have no place legislating on something that's a spiritual issue between loving, consenting adults. Period.

By the way, I'm a married heterosexual dude, in case you're curious about the source.

so, because it's a definition that's been around a long time we should leave it alone?
at one time the earth was defined as flat and the heavens circled it.
the definition of a man was pretty narrow not that long ago. some men had to use a different bathroom, couldn't eat at some fine food establishments, couldn't drink water from some fountains.
at what point do we simply stop looking at what has changed and accept the status quo? is there some kind of cut off point you'd like to recommend?

I am really proud of Apple for this. Not many companies have the guts to do something like this.

We have enough problems in this country without trying to knock out people who care and love each other.

The definition of marriage was made by humans. The entire idea that just because two people of the same sex love each other they cannot get married is simply STUPID and another one of those silly notions from the dark ages.

Congrats Apple. We are proud of you.

The problem with keeping companies "out of politics" is that it becomes a form of politics itself. The company only stands for making as much money as it can.

Having a company with values, especially ones of openness and tolerance, is something we should cherish, not punish.

Sondjata, I think your argument only works if you can prove that people are born as polygamists and can't help themselves.

Now, in effort to preemptively ward of someone who brings up pedophiles who can't help themselves, that has to do with kids, and that's where I draw the line. OK? OK.

I know people sometimes need these absolutes...so there you go.