Apple Says “Vote ‘No’ on Prop 8” – donates nearly 335 iPhones to the cause - Macenstein

Apple Says “Vote ‘No’ on Prop 8” – donates nearly 335 iPhones to the cause

In a rare political move, Apple today officially announced that is is donating $100,000 to California’s No on 8 campaign. Proposition 8 seeks to change California’s State Constitution and ban same-sex marriages in the land of Schwarzenegger.

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.

To put $100,000 in perspective, that is roughly 335 (16 GB) iPhones. Apple sold 6,892,000 iPhones last quarter.

17 Responses to “Apple Says “Vote ‘No’ on Prop 8” – donates nearly 335 iPhones to the cause”
  1. Luke Henry says:

    “fundamental rights — including the right to marry —”

    Since when is marriage a fundamental right?

    This has nothing to do with my own personal opinion on the issue, but placing marriage in the category of “fundamental rights” lowers the bar and the importance of what a fundamental right is.

    It just seems like in North America we like to attach onto one little issue instead of looking at the bigger picture.

  2. ERIC says:

    Everyone in this country has the same “right” regarding marrige – marry somebody of the opposite sex. This has nothing to do with rights. Redefining the institution of marriage from one man/one woman opens the door to defining it for anything. People will attack that notion, but it’s true. What about Mormons – won’t they now say that we should honor multiple wife marriages? What about crazy people who love their animals more than people – can’t we marry our pets? It’s like saying we want to redefine what the words white and black mean (in terms of the color).

  3. Dave-O says:

    Perhaps your comments dehumanizing homosexuals would be more appropriate on another site, Eric.

  4. dizzy says:

    I don’t understand why it should concern me who gets married to who? How does it affect me? I don’t care who the **** you want to marry. It’s not like the current marriages are so great anyway, what is it now 50-60% divorce rate? Maybe allow more people to marry will lower the divorce rate percentages.

  5. byronchurch says:

    Good for Steve . Such a no brainer . It’s so easy to go with the flow when its not challenging Your rights . I have no problem if you want to mary some religion or some bimbo your dog or your mother . as long as both parties are of legal age and willing , it has no bering on my or my marriage or my sense of culture or community . You don’t have the right to tell me who or what I cant mary . Who died and made you the morel authority ?

  6. Majd says:

    Eric, at the risk of sounding offensive, it’s no one’s right to tell anyone they can’t do anything that doesn’t harm another human being…

    In my liberal opinion, if I want to marry a pet, nobody should be able to deny me. When people attach marriage to fundamental rights, they aren’t attaching marriage itself, they are attaching the freedom to marry whomever you want.

    Marriage is a little more than a religious institution. It is also a social and legal institution

    Again, in my opinion, the government should only tell me what to do, when my actions interfere with another person’s right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness….

  7. aranhamo says:

    Dave-O, you could learn something from all the other posters here. Eric did not “dehumanize homosexuals”, nor did he say anything about homosexuals. He merely expressed his belief that marriage should be defined as being between one man and one woman. Every other poster managed to disagree with him without accusing him of anything, or imputing beliefs he did not express. That’s called healthy debate. Healthy debate is not when you tell the other guy to shut up.

    Anyway, for the record, I agree with both Luke Henry and Eric. Also, businesses have just as much right to political speech as individuals, and Apple has a very liberal corporate culture, so their position is not surprising.

  8. Uber Eter-Pay says:

    And guess what!

    Mormons don’t do multiple marriage anymore. In fact, it’s looked down on incredibly!

    I grew up Mormon. The only reason it was instituted in the first place is because a lot of the men-folk got slaughtered in Missouri, and the women didn’t have a man to look after them. So, the men that were left brought the women into their house to keep them safe more than anything else.

    Sounds like Mr. Eric is a Bible-Basher. Good way to get people to see your point, dude. If you make something up to support your point, how could you ever loose?

    It’s done wonders for this wonderful government of ours…

  9. TBM says:

    Marriage is NOT a religious institution! It is currently a civil, legal institution that brings with it rights and responsibilities! Medical coverage, right to visit, legal guardianship… It’s not up to the government who I decide to make these bonds with!

    Good job Steve and the BOD. As a holder of AAPL stock, I applaud your bold and righteous move!


  10. Photon137 says:

    Good for Apple.

    As it stands, the marriage between a man and a woman as an institution is an ideal held by most religions. And if a church chooses to make it that way that’s fine. But one of the great things is separation of church and state. In the case of marriage, the state should define that institution that guarantees the the best rights and freedoms to everyone, no matter what their sexuality might be.

    This is about recognizing the basic humanity in everyone. If you believe that it is in every human, the right to find someone to love and to be with, why should anyone step in and say that person MUST be of the opposite sex?

    If the one man/one woman argument is based on the Bible, what then of the other religions that people follow here? What of other beliefs? Do we forget them and tell them because they don’t have a majority place in society we can designate them second place citizens?

    So, Apple was correct in saying that marriage is a fundamental right to all individuals, no matter what their sexuality may be. You, or your family, or your church or whatever, may prefer the one man/one woman institution. That’s great. Just because someone has a different ideal doesn’t mean it’s wrong or any less right than yours.

    Voting “No” on Prop 8 guarantees these freedoms. And that is what’s important here.

    Just my two cents.

  11. Kurt says:

    As an extremely Conservative Christian Mac user, I feel obligated to chime in. The reason this issue keeps coming up is because the gay community is marketing themselves to people who DO NOT WANT TO KNOW WHAT GOES ON IN THE GAY COMMUNITY.

    Marriage is an institution that comes from ancient Middle-Eastern tradition, and to Jews & Christians, it is believed to be an institution given to us directly from God (I don’t care what the irreligious have to say about Judeo-Christian history/theology). To believe the institution is directly from God and commanded VERY specifically as between a man and a woman as a picture of Christ’s relationship to his people means it is very important to protect. In essence, “Marriage” is OUR TRADITIONAL INSTITUTION!

    I would like to point out that I don’t think homosexuality is something to be scoffed at or ridiculed. I think it is something that is a product of our human nature mixed with mankind’s God-given curiosity, and while I believe it is a sinful lifestyle I cannot condemn it any more than the lifestyles of any other human beings, who according to Scripture, sin almost constantly. Furthermore, I believe two consenting adults, in the privacy of their own homes should be allowed to do absolutely anything they want so long as it does not violate the rights of any other person.

    This is where the gay community has shot itself in the foot. Instead of going about their business privately (an essential right in the USA), the gay community wants to make their sexual preferences a public matter, which really only stands to create public backlash/resistance – when they could just go about their lives and peacefully have a gay lifestyle…

    I support prop 8 because I believe it is wrong to redefine mankind’s longest standing societal tradition over the grumbling of a loud, sub-cultural revolutionary group specifically because I believe the government needs to get out of the business of telling people what they can and cannot do… If gay couples want to get “married” in churches and live as a married couple, then they have every right to, and I do not see ANY value in fighting for the government’s “stamp of approval.” They need to live their lives and be satisfied with the decisions they have made about themselves. The only reason this comes up is that they want to force themselves into the mainstream which is selfish, childish, and only creates this kind of stupid bickering.

    Also, if this was really about healthcare and visitation rights and all the other “rights” that the gay community says it really is fight for, this could be fought much more easily in the courts as separate civil suits on healthcare and visitation rights… Instead, the gay community wants to force the rest of the nation to recognize their relationships and partners as equally “married,” and last time I checked, WE DONT CARE. DO WHAT YOU WANT, AND LEAVE US OUT OF IT!!!

  12. Alex says:

    @ Kurt:

    yes, according to the Bible, almost every human being sins all the time. But this is not against the law. So, If this be the case, I say let gay people get married, and, according to the Bible, they’ll settle things up with G’d later.

    @ ERIC

    1) Gay marriage is not against the constitution because nowadays men and women have the same identical rights (appart from pregnancy time-out, etc).. So in an asset-division for example, things would go normally.

    2) No one can marry their dog, because their dog won’t be able to receive their money when they die, or take care of their (human) kids. So, this would be inconstitutional.

    3) Well, if the law is properly changed, mormons can get married. The asset-division and other things will be a little different, but it would be legal and OK.

    4) So, under this point of view, I believe gay people can and should get married, and Apple is absolutely right to support these things.

  13. Photon137 says:


    As to the historical argument of marriage being a Judeo-Christian concept is an issue I have some problems with. Are you implying that we shouldn’t recognize non-Christian unions, even between men and women, because your history says that this was passed on to your people by God? I am not going to argue that there isn’t a spiritual component to the institution of marriage. This is why so many churches endorse it and perform marriage ceremonies. Marriages are practiced in many religions and cultures. I also do no believe that a Hindu or Islamic marriage is less valid in the eyes of God. Neither should we favor one groups interpretation over another.

    As far as I am concerned, we can’t argue for the religious aspect in a case like this. The main reason isn’t due to same sex couples marrying but that we must recognize all religions in this country that may want to marry. So we can not and should not use a religious definition. There is also the separation of church and state issue. You can not force your religious definitions on everyone.

    You also claim that people should do what they want and be happy with their lives, just once they stay out of the “mainstream”. It’s like saying that they are not worthy to be in that position because your personal views do not warrant that position for them. Why should ANY group of people have to scurry around and hide for society’s eye-sight? To me that is a deeply disturbing view that anyone can have. In fact, Kurt, why do you deserve to be in the “mainstream” over anyone else? Aren’t we all created equal?

    You also state that government shouldn’t be in the business of telling people what to do or what not to do. That is exactly what voting “No” does. Voting “Yes” says that you can’t marry and with it might take certain rights married couples have. Voting “No” guarantees rights. In the sense, maybe it’s forcing you to recognize these rights but other than that it takes nothing from you. YOu are free to go to church and live with your own definitions of marriage and so on. Just as they are free to do the same. If you believe that certain rights belong to married couples then also why should a group of people have to fight for these same rights in a civil suit? It’s dehumanizing to say that’s how things should be.

  14. Xeno says:

    Ok, to end this discussion.

    1) everyone derves to be treated equally and be happy regardless of sexual orientation, race creed, etc.

    2) Religions get tax free status from the feds.

    3) if they choose not to abide by our constitutional and human rights, we can remove their tax free status and their ability to issue marriage licenses.

    4) end of story

  15. Modiglian says:

    Gay and lesbians can marry in my country, I’ve not noticed any difference since the law was modified to allow so.

    No homosexual partisans prowl the streets to force straight people to cross to the dark side…

    So, if they want to marry, let them do so.

  16. Jeff says:

    Modiglian, that’s great that you haven’t seen any difference in your country, but the United States seems to be unable to accomplish anything like that. The second Proposition 8 gets defeated, the wheels will be set in motion for all sorts of problems.

    While the Constitution protects freedom of speech, that freedom ends as soon as you say something that’s politically incorrect. You can bet that within five years, some church will be sued for refusing to perform a homosexual “marriage,” some pastor or priest or whatever will be arrested for “hate speech” when he preaches the exclusive sanctity of “traditional” marriage, all organizations that refuse to accept homosexuality as “normal” will be threatened with losing their tax-exempt status, or some other such ridiculousness. It’s already happened in Massachusetts, and it’s now poised to happen across America. I frankly wouldn’t be surprised if we wind up in another civil war, over this whole stupid issue.

    Unfortunately, that’s the way America works: it’s all about the “special interest” groups. Proposition 8 *is* about civil rights, but not in the way people things: it’s about taking away the civil rights of the majority by creating new “rights” at the behest of a minority.

  17. Ethan says:

    “I grew up Mormon. The only reason it was instituted in the first place is because a lot of the men-folk got slaughtered in Missouri, and the women didn’t have a man to look after them. So, the men that were left brought the women into their house to keep them safe more than anything else.”

    Haha. And how many wives did Joseph Smith have? And how young was the youngest? I’m not trying to offend you. I just don’t believe you.

Leave A Comment


Click here to inquire about making a fortune by advertising your game, gadget, or site on Macenstein.