Google Raises Eyebrows With New Gay-Only Employee Benefit

In other words, the company will be paying homosexual employees who include domestic partners on their health insurance plans more money to make up for the federal taxes they pay on that benefit. (Married couples don't have to pay taxes on spousal health benefits.)

But under Google's new policy, the company isn't offering any extra pay to heterosexual domestic partners, because it says heterosexual employees have the option of avoiding the tax by getting married.

Daryl Herrschaft, director of the Workplace Project at Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, says Google's policy is a step in the right direction.

“They’re picking up the slack where the federal government hasn’t recognized the reality of diversity in the workforce today,” Herschaft told FoxNews.com. “This is eliminating existing discrimination that ... gays and lesbians face in the workplace as result of federal law that doesn’t acknowledge their families.”

But Focus on the Family, a Christian organization aimed at providing practical help for marriage and parenting, says this far from levels the playing field.

“If Google wants to be truly fair to its employees, it should consider extra compensation to married heterosexuals who are bitten every April 15 by the marriage-penalty tax,” spokesman Gary Schneeberger told FoxNews.com. “How is offering more money to only one group to offset a perceived inequity not a form of discrimination against those groups not fortunate enough to receive such bonuses?”

Firstly, its important to know, this comes from the United States. This is not in Australia. But it is interesting to sit on the sidelines and watch what happens, even if it doesn't get much media coverage here in 'Oz'. In fact, so far, it appears to have received *more* media coverage than our own Prime Minister's views on Gay Marriage and rights (to-date). (refer previous story: on gay marriage and Julia Gillard - http://adingo.stolemybaby.com/i-dont-believe-in-god-oh-and-i-dont-believe-i )

And, of course, its Google. And we know that Google take on challenges when it comes to Governments, law, "trying not to be evil".

The curiosity however, I believe, will come from the reactions. The reactions of the Christian Right, the ultra-conservatives, those people that put "family first" - in a heterosexual way that is. It will be interesting seeing the reactions where, suddenly a high profile organisation appears to 'discriminate' against heterosexuality in order to provide gay and lesbian families a chance to match their financial status, while laws remain archaic and less supportive.

6There are laws. Laws that specifically exclude same-sex partnerships. We also have that here in Australia. They call it the "Marriage Act". And, as a result of parliament taking on the role of defining "marriage" they can no longer claim to be taking an independent, non-religious view of things. Our PM says she doesn't believe in God. But, claims the Marriage Act is appropriate. That it reflects what Australians want. I am sure there are a few Australians that do believe in God, and where does that leave our PM?

The pity of it all comes simply. The simple fact the Government succumbs to the demands of a single sector has resulted in what is essentially screwed-up legislation. The Marriage Act has its place, but its not about Marriage, its about the legal position of a recognised pairing of two people. For tax purposes. For social security purposes. For property and asset ownership purposes. Its not about God joining too people in a "sacred ritual". 

Its a bit silly really, those who want, should have the right to get married. Those who don't, shouldn't worry. It should not be up to Parliament to approve, authorise, condone or legislate. It simply comes down to the "God issue".

Back to Google. They are not the first. They won't be the last. It will be interesting to watch, when and if this goes any further. How would Australian's react if BHP or Woodside or Telstra started doing the same?

Sylvestor

"This difference is, of course, that the decision as to what is be viewed and what is not is moved from a choice made by an individual to a compulsion imposed by a government agency, without transparency to the individual that a decision is being made," the submission said.

"Use of compulsion rightly calls for special vigilance to ensure that denial of choice is fully justified. Special safeguards are appropriate and necessary where there is also no transparency to the user as to the decision that has been made."

"Google, like many other internet companies, has a global, all-product ban against child sexual abuse material, which is illegal in almost every country, and we filter out this content from our search results and remove it from our products,"

"But moving to a mandatory ISP level filtering regime with a scope that goes well beyond such material is heavy handed and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information."

Tags: Broadband,  Google,  James Riley,  YouTube,  Stephen Conroy,  Twitter,  Internet filter

It is vital that, not only Australian, but any internet user be aware of this information and all that relates to the current Federal Australian Government, and in particular Senator Conroy's plans, for the introduction of mandatory internet filtering for this country.

Any well versed internet user knows exactly what this means, and that no matter what system is put in place, it will not resolve the "problem".

Don't let it happen in Australia! Don't let it happen anywhere! Make them, force them, to deal with the real issues at hand and put in resources to ensure the safety of children etc. This notion is ludicrous, wasteful, laughable and deserves to be highlight exactly as that!

Currently we see a very public targeting of Google and YouTube, aligned with actions in China and Thailand (among others). Is this current Government also expending vast amounts of public resources targeting other services and companies (Microsoft? Yahoo? Facebook? Twitter? etc etc). If there exists a level of self-regulation on issues such as 'child pornography' as there appears to be to a degree, the issues raised by this current Government become even more watery and illegitimate.

Don't be fooled parents! Don't think that this will protect anyone! And don't be fooled that it won't slow networks, become political (think about it, all information about Abortion or Euthanasia will most likely be blocked...not just some, ALL!), and since our Government sites Thailand and China as case examples, its a dangerous path on which they walk.

Don't let it happen! Post your thoughts.

Sylvestor