LGBT News Major U.S. corporations call on Supreme Court to strike down gay marriage bans

The economic argument is precisely correct. I have no plan whatsoever to continue living in Montana three years from now, and my target in Washington. I don't want to live in a state that denies me the right to marry. Washington would not do that...

Talent flees bigoted places, and that's also part of why the bigger tech firms don't come to places like Montana...

 

Hooray for corporations sticking their noses where they don't belong. Funny. It's like they want lgbt people to think they care about them.

 

Preventing private entities from controlling laws is more important than getting married. One only benefits a small portion of the population, the other protects everyone. Private entities have too much power in the federal government as it is. The last thing I want is for them to influence state laws.

 

I have mixed feelings hearing this, as money shouldn't control law, but this is a law we all want passed.

 

i am so behind in politics, but wouldn't those money to pay for civil union be some sort of revenue to the government? or am i imagining?

 

These are companies who know that gays buy products, and gays are sometimes the best and most creative employees to have.

So sure they are looking at their bottom line, but they are getting behind this right at the moment we need them to.

So yes, if it goes well with the Supreme Court in June, I will be considering buying Nike shoes for the first time in ten years, yes, I may buy two pairs.

I want Prop 8 and DOMA gone, like soon. Anyway who gets behind this with us, gets my business plain and simple.

---------- Post added 26th Feb 2013 at 08:22 PM ----------

"Others who have already committed to sign include AIG, Cisco, Levi Strauss, McGraw Hill, NCR, Office Depot, Oracle, Panasonic, Qualcomm, and Xerox."

So major, so very important.

I really am beginning to think that the Supreme Court will strike down both Prop 8 and DOMA. There seems to be more and more support for gay rights and equal protection by the day. I never thought I would see this happening.

 

^isn't McGraw Hill a textbook company? @_@

 

Folks. It's a freaking amicus brief. That's not exactly a shady strategy.

Um, no, it's a law we want struct down by the judicial branch, not passed by the legislative branch.

 

This. Amicus briefs are par for the course, there's nothing unusual at all about this. And do keep in mind that supreme court justices are appointed, not elected, and hold their positions for life. They are not like legislators, who may cater to specific lobbies and have to worry about getting re-elected to new terms.

 

This is amazing!!

 

To everyone bitching about how private entities shouldn't control government, this is a democracy (technically a republic), the most private entity is the citizen. The alternative to control by private entity is dictatorship. Also, an amicus brief has no power, it is simply a statement of support.

 

I have to agree here. So much as I want gay marriage, it's more important that corporations stay out of the government.

---------- Post added 27th Feb 2013 at 07:53 AM ----------

If it can't breathe, it's not a citizen. I'm tired of corporate money being more important in the decision making process than anything else.

 

I agree that corporations shouldn't have a voice in our government. The argument where they should have the right to be involved like other citizens doesn't hold water because they already do. The individuals who work for the corporation do have a say and a vote like everyone else. Giving rights to things that only exist as a concept as if they are human doesn't make any sense.

 

At least allies are trying to help any way they can.

 

well, in the end corporations just want more talented employees and well, profits?

 

Money does make the world go round. :lol:

 

I'm very disappointed to be reading so much knee jerk reaction here to corporate advocacy. I feel like what happened was people read "corporations" and "government" and then kind of flipped out without thinking very critically about the important differences between an amicus brief and pumping millions of dollars into a political campaign. The simple truth is that one is problematic, the other is not.

As a Montanan, I can sympathize with the sentiment, because we have a history (and it's actually continuing) of political corruption surrounding money being pumped in from out of state, especially over extractive mining issues. Campaign finance laws, lax as they are, have hurt the people of our state. I would also argue, like most of you, that they also hurt the nation. The issue is not of free speech but rather the integrity of the political process and equal access (at least that's how I understand the argument).

But while I believe Citizens United was decided wrongly, and I am unhappy that a case brought in our state imposing more restrictions on campaign finance was summarily reversed on appeal, I can still appreciate the fact that a brief from amicus curiae is different from campaign finance law.

First, in general, amicus briefs are submitted to the court by organizations, whether corporations, think tanks, or non-profits rather than by individuals. It's not that they are preventd from doing so. It's just that most of the time, Jane and Joe Public don't exactly feel compelled to do the legal research to present to the court. To ban corporations from submitting such briefs would be banning a huge source of them.

Second, as mentioned, the court doesn't have to agree with the brief and cite it in the decision. One could argue that neither does the electorate have to vote for the moneybags candidate, but the difference is important: jurors on the Supreme Court and the federal Courts of Appeal are there for life, during times of good behavior (and they are rarely impeached). Therefore, they are removed, which is to say, independent of democratic passions. Since they are not in danger of losing office for making an unpopular but constitutionally correct decision, it also follows that they can't be "bought out" by an amicus brief.

 

What about gay rights groups like The Human Rights Campaign, they're rolling in donations, should they be allowed no voice? I'm not saying corporations should dictate law, just that in a democracy private organizations have the right to air grievances. And this was an amicus brief, a bunch of paperwork, no big money involved.