Plenty of corporations voluntarily offer benefits to same-sex couples now, even if they aren't legally recognized as married. Pretty sure these big dogs are in that club(although I didn't bother to verify it). The complications they're referring to is real because conflicting laws between states and federal DO cause HR complications as well as legal risk. Anyone claiming otherwise has obviously never dealt with government or insurance companies. It's not exactly a simple process.
Companies sign brief against act which denies same-sex marriage recognition, say legislation creates complications for employers.
Electronic Arts, Microsoft, and Zynga have thrown their lots in with dozens of other businesses in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act. The companies signed a joint amicus brief, an official filing on behalf of parties interested in but not directly involved in a case, outlining their objections for the benefit of the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Disclosure: GameSpot's parent company CBS also signed the brief.)
The Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted by the federal government in 1996, legally defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The Obama administration since found the act's third section (which contains the definition) unconstitutional, and has refused to act upon it.
The brief states that being subject to both state recognition of same-sex marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act "puts us, as employers and enterprises, to unnecessary cost and administrative complexity, and regardless of our business or professional judgment forces us to discriminate against a class of our lawfully-married employees, upon whose welfare and morale our own success in part depends."
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is currently hearing the case of Karen Golinski v. the US Office of Personnel Management. Golinski won the right for her federal employee health coverage to extend to her wife when a district court found parts of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, but the case was appealed by the Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.
They're "interested" because it causes costs and complexities? Bullshit. If it was an actual problem for them, they would take further action then saying that they disapprove of this act. This is just a publicity act so they can rake in more customers.
'complications' means corporations dont want to pay out additional benefits to same sex partners. This is the real underlying reason that same sex marriage is being opposed overall, its just being smokescreened by lobbyists' cronies bringing up the religious agenda.
Being a libertarianish conservative, it doesn't make sense for Republicans/and religious conservatives to be for small government, yet rely on government to solve a moral issue for them.
"Golinski won the right for her federal employee health coverage to extend to her wife when a district court found parts of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, but the case was appealed by the Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group."
In other news, the Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group kicked a kitten yesterday.
I though companies had to offer a discrimination free workplace. Taking openly taking a side is discriminating upon some of their own employees. As an individual people can choose to be pro all against it all they want, comes with freedom. As a company that is just unprofessional.
Christ. I thought political Youtube comments were bad, but I guess this place might actually one-up it.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
like my ex-wife used to say, you cant help who you fall in love with. just because some people have different tastes, who are we to say whats right and whats wrong. im sure we're not the ones worthy of judging these people. i feel obama hit it right on the nail.
@KimCheeWarriorX Um, we say what's right and what's wrong all the time, it's how we come up with those things called "rights" and "laws."
Not right and wrong. Judging... which more applies to the tolerance of others beliefs than just their acts. More importantly, if it's okay to say people should be barred from having the same rights as others due to their sexuality, I'm legitimately afraid to see just how far this thought of making laws for "right" and "wrong" can go. The tyranny of the majority can be an extremely dangerous and destructive force if we don't stop it short of trampling people's liberties.
So......what? Really, I don't care about what some game company has to say about some inconsequential social issue.
This comment has been deleted
@FinalKloud As soon as your St. Bernard is a human adult with the ability to express its desire to marry you in a clear, concise manner, then you can do it.
Until then, how about we let consenting adults do with one another as they please?
@FinalKloud Don't laugh. I may not be long before you can along with a few others things.
@mtnjak Because letting consenting adults do what they wish means dogs, cats, and children are included, right?
You wouldn't recognize logic or reason if it bit your face off.
@oflow You miss my point as well. Right now, "children" don't have full rights. But it is only a matter of time before age doesn't matter. Right now, the age of consent in Spain is 13. If some of our leaders and judges look to Europe as a basis for our laws (see my earlier comments regarding this) eventually age will not matter, eventually other factors may not matter either. I believe that what you do in your own home is your business. But I think this "equality" path we're attempting to head down is not a wise one and I don't think granting special rights to a very very very small group of people is a good idea.
@mtnjak you seem to have overlooked the term 'adult' in your argument. Adults have more rights than children do. Children dont have full rights, they only have dependency rights.
@baseballkrba10 Oh really? Judges have become an oligarchy, some even making decisions influence by foreign law. They are not upholding our Constitution they are legislating from the bench to suit their needs. All it would take is some wacko judge to make a decision based on so-called "Constitutional rights" and we keep fall down the "slope".
@airmikee99 Could have fooled me.
@mtnjak Why is the concept of consent so difficult for so many conservatives to understand?
I mean, a few years ago, congressional Republicans attempted to loosen the legal definition of rape to exclude cases where the victim had been drugged beforehand (no, I don't feel like looking up the source at this very moment... you can do it if you want). What's so difficult about the concept that only parties of legal age (THE AGE OF CONSENT - HINT HINT) and sound mind (being able to make clear, un-influenced or coerced decisions independently) can enter into legal contracts and have autonomy under the law?
@Eliphs As much as I did not want to get into this discussion (life has taught me to avoid this topic on the Internet), I feel I must reply.
You just won the debate, and anyone who can't see that is deliberately blinding themselves.
@mtnjak Marriage is a contract just like any other. I can not enter into a contract with my dog just like I can not enter into a contract with a minor. So that is what is going to stop a judge.
The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done?an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.
Often proponents of a "slippery slope" contention propose a long series of intermediate events as the mechanism of connection leading from A to B. The "camel's nose" provides one example of this: once a camel has managed to place its nose within a tent, the rest of the camel will inevitably follow. In this sense the slippery slope resembles the genetic fallacy, but in reverse.
As an example of how an appealing slippery slope argument can be unsound, suppose that whenever a tree falls down, it has a 95% chance of knocking over another tree. We might conclude that soon, a great amount of trees would fall; however this is not the case. There is a 5% chance that no more trees will fall, a 4.75% chance that exactly one more tree will fall (and thus a 9.75% chance of 1 or fewer additional trees falling), and so on. There is a 92.3% chance that 50 or fewer additional trees will fall. The expected value of trees that will fall is 20. In the absence of some momentum factor that makes later trees more likely to fall than earlier ones, this "domino effect" approaches zero probability.
This form of argument often provides evaluative judgments on social change: once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule.
Note that these arguments may indeed have validity, but they require some independent justification of the connection between their terms: otherwise the argument (as a logical tool) remains fallacious.
The "slippery slope" approach may also relate to the conjunction fallacy: with a long string of steps leading to an undesirable conclusion, the chance of all the steps actually occurring in sequence is less than the chance of any one of the individual steps occurring alone.
Come on back to reality, jak. I'm not a liberal, I've never voted for a Democrat in my life. I'm a former Republican that's sick of religious bigotry and intolerance mucking up a perfectly good party.
@airmikee99 airmikee99 misses my point entirely. You're obviously not intelligent enough for this conversation. It's the fact that I AM thinking of the future that this slippery slope argument (and yes, it is one) comes into play. It's precisely the fact that I can see where this is headed and you cannot which makes this disturbing. Why is it that liberals claim to be so tolerant and open minded, yet they continually prove that they are not?
@mtnjak So you're stuck in the past and the rest of us have moved into the present and future. You think that says something positive about you?
If you don't understand the difference between 'two consenting adults' and 'two consenting children' then there is a lot of things you need to get resolved in your own head before you discuss anything with anyone.
Mental midgets make the illogical leap that allowing two consenting adults somehow includes children and animals. What about HUMAN ADULT confuses you into thinking of kids and cows?
@mtnjak It is no less logical than treating people like second class citizens. A little more than 30 years ago, homosexuality was deemed a mental disorder. So, yeah, there was a major stigma to the idea of two 'mentally disturbed' human beings marrying. And guess what? Psychology has caught up (I know! Shock AND awe!)! What does that mean for the rest of us? Humans are able to evolve mentally AND socially! God bless us with our big caveman brains and opposable thumbs!
@airmikee99 Well, you know what? 30 years ago if we were having this conversation (on an Atari 2600 forum, if the internet was around then) I'm willing to bet money that 99% of us posting would be disgusted at the idea of same-sex marriage. You know what else? 30 years from now, when our grandkids are posting on the Playstation 10 message forum I don't want to imagine what conversations about social issues will look like. Tell me, if two consentual adults of the same sex should be allowed to marry, what is to stop a judge from stating that two consentual humans of any age should be allowed to marry? or a consentual adult and ______ , whatever. How "logical" does that sound to you?
@FinalKloud Zomg, slippery slope!
"The Obama administration since found the act's third section (which contains the definition) unconstitutional, and has refused to act upon it."
WRONG. Please, if you're going to report, do it accurately. Obama ordered the DOJ to not defend Section 3 in court against suits challenging the law as unconstitutional. However, the gov't is still enforcing it as law until the court's declare it unconstitutional. The article makes it sound like the Obama admin decided not to enforce a duly enacted law, and that's not the case.
Republicans, they hate any thing living, trying to live, old, young, sick, disabled, um-employed, not making six figures of more. They are anti-people period. Now censure this!. The rights of people to pursue happiness is individual, not governments or corporations, those who do not like if a women likes a women, man likes another man, get use to it. Thats how God made us and it is alright with me.
Wow, another political news story on Gamespot. Ah, the 9th Circus. Singing to the choir on that one. So what if they oppose it? Voters in 33 states have decided what the definition of marriage should be, including California. What part of "no" do they not understand?
@mtnjak The problem with that is the US Constitution. People can popular vote all they like, until they vote to enact something which violates the Constitution (aka violates another's rights). That's when courts have to step in and say "We don't care if it's popular, it's wrong."
@mtnjak Quite a few courts said slavery was okay. Does that mean it's okay?
Women used to be considered property, by law and the courts. Does that mean we should still treat them as such?
Just because a lot of people believe it, doesn't mean it's true. Billions of humans think the USA is the latest evil empire to spoil the planet.
Are you saying something is true, just, or morally correct, just because lots of people believe it?
@mtnjak America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. And there is no rational reason for excluding marriage from same-sex couples, whose love and personhood is equal to yours. Look at all the cases heading to the Supreme Court vs. DOMA, where ruling after ruling is coming down on the side of marriage equality.
The problem of bigotry is in large part caused by an individual's inability to mind his own damn business for two minutes at a time. If you don't like homosexuality, don't have sex with someone of the same sex. If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. Repeat after me: "It is not hurting me or anyone else, so it is not my business." Keep repeating until it sinks in.
This comment has been deleted
@Hvac0120 There are no laws prohibiting who a person can or cannot fall in love with. In fact you can love someone and not be married. The government isn't deciding who can marry who, we are. The government is just upholding our wishes, in which 33 states have already decided the definition of what marriage is. It's true, for many this is a religious issue as well as social. For me, it's not only religious but a biological fact of how as humans we were designed.
This comment has been deleted
So apparently the only important part about marriage is the definition of it being between a man and woman. Nothing else surrounding it, that is completely irrelevant regarding a persons sexuality, is important? Tell me, has the definition of marriage always stayed the same? Pretty sure it's been redefined at least a couple times since the old testament. What is happening now is not about society defending the definition of marriage as it's about simply not accepting homosexuals as equals or the concept of homosexuality as innate. It's an intolerance hangover from the 50's that is slow to change because of how small the minority is that its impacting.
There is nothing damaging about other peoples opinions, like mine, nor is my opinion lacking justificaton based on the a basic understanding of our Constitution. Therefore, this is not a matter of prejudice. As for the concept of marriage, real marriage, there is no other equivalent nor should there be. Marriage, although imperfect due to our imperfect human nature, is still what is best for our society and should be supported and promoted, not torn down, not redefined.
To anyone saying that allowing rights to homosexuals will one day lead to rights of other groups you are probably correct, but to say that is will be a group like pedophiles is more than likely incorrect. Whenever this country fought for the rights of women and black persons it most certainly opened the way for homosexuals to fight for their rights. So would those who are against homosexuality now be against the rights for women and blacks then? That I cannot say because I will not speak for those persons, but based on the current argument that would have to be their stance.
You cannot deny a group natural rights simply because it may cause us to come back to a different civil rights issue. To do so would leave the entire world oppressed by one group. We may one day have to come to the pedophile issue and we will have to face that one head on, but we cannot use future "maybes" to oppress a group now.
Oh, EA & MS & Zynga... Boo-hoooo.A good number of major Fortune 500 companies have already adapted. If this ruling caught your HR teams flatfooted, they need to stop reading Nancy Drew & Hardy Boys and start paying attention to what's going on in America. This type of ruling (treating long-term same-sex relationships the same as "marriage") has been gaining significant traction in America's culture over the past decade or so.Regardless of how you define "marriage", I think all long-term couples are worthy of some respect - it's not always easy, and it's not always pretty, but these relationships require trust, commitment, dedication, and determination - values that we should encourage and embody.
does not belong on a gaming website, you (gamespot) are just making fools of yourselves.
should talk about games and games only
@gix47 i like watching people make fools of themselves on topics like this. but i am in agreement, this is un-nessicarily posted as food for trolls
@blackothh you made a comment in your response to my post saying "d dont you dare come back at me with saying something like "there is not consent between a pedopile and their victim, but there is between homos." the point is that both homos and pedophiles are attracted to the wrong thing. the result of both their attractions are both immoral. " First of all, learn how to spell pedophile if you want to have a discourse about them. Second, morality in this case is a subjective thing based on your personal beliefs, since homosexuals/lesbians are attracted to the people it is natural for them to be with, just as heterosexuals are. I agree that pedophilia is most definitely a disease, but homosexuality has been declared NOT a disease but a genetic tendency or trait, by at least two of the major medical & psychological associations in this country. Just because you don't like homosexuals or lesbians and their lifestyle, it doesn't mean that their attractions are immoral or medically wrong.. You are entitled to opinions, but unless they are based on scientific studies or medical findings, they are neither right or wrong. It would be no different than you saying that African-Americans are an inferior people because of their skin color or racial origins. It seems you are trying to base your claims on religious beliefs, and they are NOT the foundation of our laws in this country. And if you really think this stuff shouldn't be posted here, while those who run the site seem to disagree, why did you put your (less than) 2 cents' worth in? Go back to the middle ages or the early west with your backward ideas, you would probably love it there.
@leathrpaws its most definatly lazyness,
the english language is not even honored by the united states anymore, might as well be spanish .im glad you open your mind to such evils and im perfectly content with my "narrow" views of the world. they keep me out of trouble. your grammar and punctuation is just as bad as mine so i dont see how you can claim superiority over myself.
@blackothh interesting that you seem to think that your definition of evil is the one that everyone believes. I wish you well in your very narrowly defined world of good and evil, but wouldn't be surprised if I am not the only one who thinks you are way off base here. May you find piece and contentment in your narrow little world. check out the very next post for confirmation.and I am quite familiar with folks who post in blogs online without bothering to get their language right- if English is not your primary language then it would certainly be excusable, but otherwise it is just laziness.
@leathrpaws first of all if u read anything i said u would have noticed that i did spell pedophile right further on, i dont care to spell check myself because i do not care what people want to pick apart, as i said i love watching people make fools of themselves here. u can continue going on advocating all you want that homosexuality is ok. you are entitled to your opinion. disease, genetic defect, whatever you want to classify it as, it is the inability of someone to control evil impulses in themselves.
@gix47 Should Gamespot stop covering industry developments, mergers, sales, stock results etc.? This news story is directly relevant.
@gix47 Issues affecting game companies are issues about games. Your bigotry is showing.
@gix47 They are not making fools of themselves.
@gix47 Uh they talk about general legal issues relating to gaming companies all the damn time.
Content you might like…
Users who looked at this article also looked at these content items.
Avalanche Studios co-founder says developer's ambition is for action, not moments that make players cry; steampunk-style game on hold. Full Story
- Posted May 15, 2013 6:33 am PT
4A Games creative director Andrew Prokhorov thanks Jason Rubin for telling the studio's story, but says, "We deserve the ratings we get." Full Story
- Posted May 16, 2013 12:44 pm PT