Apple and Other Companies Push Forward in Fight for Marriage Equality

[NY Guitarist]

Good on Apple for being on the right side of history.

I can't wait for the days when a thread like this won't have to be in PRSI.

I agree. It will be nice to see the day that equality is no longer an 'issue' because it's the social normal.

 

[Melab]

This comment makes me laugh a little, I'm not being mean or anything, but people complain when there's a story about Foxconn that makes Apple look bad and point out that many other companies use them as well. This story is how a huge number of companies all came out in support of gay marriage and we're all "way to go Apple!." IDK, it just struck me as funny. I'm proud now that I drink Coke.

----------



I'm asking why does the government need to have anything to do with marriage and you still haven't answered that question. I could care less about who stups who or who wants to commit and love who. But apparently the government did and does. Why? Why can't you just choose who you want you benefits to go to like you do on an insurance policy?

Once you answer why the government is so interested in maintaining the institution of marriage then you can argue why it should be only a man and a woman, or also man and a man or a woman and a woman. And of course depending on why marriage exists you could then argue for polygamous unions.

I have seen many bizarre political views, but this one ranks up there with sovereign-citizen-the-constitution-isn't-"really"-law and I-am-rambling-like-a-five-year-old territory. First off, this has nothing to do with "govrnment interest" in marriage. Second, your understanding of the institution is so crude that it almost offensive. Ever heard of "spousal privilege"? That is the first thing that comes to mind. Why can't you choose whoever you want to get married to? Because marriage is a particular thing, with meaning and form. Why can't "fraud" mean "choosing to do what I want" or "murder" mean "stopping someone's heartbeat"? Because that is not what those things are.

"Government" is not "involved" in marriage. The existence of marriage law is inseparable from marriage. Would you say there was "government involvement in marriage" in the times when it was illegal to commit adultery? I certainly wouldn't, despite the unjustness of such laws. As for asking why someone can't "just choose who you want you benefits to go to like you do on an insurance policy", that's like asking "Why would you pay people to build you a house when you can just live in the forest instead?". The answer is because that doesn't address anything. Please, do some reading.