Making the Move To Mac Even Easier

The definition of “marriage” is still simply the union of one man and one woman, not a man and his boyfriend, dog, or Ford Pinto. I think the frog in the proverbial pot of water slowly heated until his demise is about to start feeling the heat, and it is too late. . . .

I am willing to accept civil unions but not civil Marriage. As Don said marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Small Dog for the last couple of years kept kibble’ and bytes free of politics. Now it is creeping back in. I don’t like it.

I am a Vermont Justice of the Peace. Thank you Don Mayer for supporting this civil rights issue. I especially liked your statement, “Vermont was the first state to make slavery illegal, it was the first state to make civil unions legal and it is time to finish the job and provide our co-workers, neighbors, family and friends with the same rights of marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy.” Thank you and Small Dog for standing up for what is right!

I agree that marriage is still simply the union of one man and one woman. Changing the definition has nothing to do with slavery or the abolition of slavery. Marriage is an option available to all.

If you want to define it at as between a man and his Ford Pinto, what does that make him if he has two or more Ford Pintos? A polygamist?

Backers of the marriage bill view this simply as a feel good issue, without considering the vast legal complications involving the ownership & transfer of property and pensions. In a few years, how will a child reared by such a couple fill out the application for marriage license reviewed by the Senate: Father? Mother? does the child flip a coin as to which is which?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this issue, Don – and for showing that this IS a business matter as much as a social matter. Other states that have allowed marriage and/or civil unions have seen economic benefits from it. More marriages equal more hotel income, more catering income, more gift income (iPods, anyone?), etc. If you keep denying civil marriage (as opposed to “religious” marriage, though many religions recognize such unions now) to loving couples that want it, you just end up with bitter feelings in our otherwise civil society. Bring on the love; send out the hate. That brings us closer to being the loving and just society envisioned by so many of the world’s religions.

Small Dog’s commitment to fairness, both in business practices and personal practices is the main reason I’m a customer. Fairness and decency is a basic human right. It’s a shame that we have to legislate it.

I was delighted to see Small Dog’s commitment to marriage equality come across my desk in the latest K&B. Marriage in the modern sense is a fairly recent, and mostly economic, convention. There is no reason civil marriage should not be extended to all consenting adults, and myriad reasons why it should. Thank you for being public in your support of this important civil rights issue.

Another reason I love you guys. Marriage should be between two people who love each other and if those with different religions don’t like it—then they don’t have to marry someone of the same sex. Government should stay out of the bedroom.

I am live in Iowa and to my JOY and Astonishment the SUPREME COURT of Iowa (as of 9 am today) has declared it unconstitutional do discriminate against same sex marriage. I am not gay, and I see no reason someone who is can’t marry the person they love. It hurts NOBODY to allow same sex marriage! VERMONT PLEASE FOLLOW IN IOWA’S FOOTSTEPS!

It is for this exact reason that I love Small Dog. Your voice in what is a controversial issue speaks volumes to your company’s moral character and commitment to social equality.

Thank you.

I believe marriage to be between one man and one woman.
I’m sorry to hear Small Dog back Civil Unions.

I positively support Don’s position. It has taken way too long to rectify this injustice.

I agree and disagree.

Everyone should enjoy the ability “exercise the same rights and privileges” in the workplace and life. I’ve always thought that you should be able to indicate whomever you choose as your “spouse” for benefits, whether it is your spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, sister/brother, person you met on the street. I think very few people would disagree with that.

However, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a matter of definition. People, no matter what, have been able to live together as a couple. No one is stopping that.

To put this into terms for this site, why should the term Mac be defined as Apple hardware with a Mac OS. Is it still a Mac if someone wipes out Mac OS and installs Windows? Or if someone makes a Hackintosh? It could be called a Mac, but its still not the same.

Give everyone the same rights and privileges, but lets not change definitions.

I found Don Holt’s comment “The definition of “marriage” is still simply the union of one man and one woman, not a man and his boyfriend, dog, or Ford Pinto.” pretty offensive.

My partner of 35 years is not my “boyfriend” is not a dog, and is not some inanimate object. He is the person I love and have chosen to spend my life with.

However, according to the laws of my state and the United States, we are legally strangers. If I die, he has no legal rights to the home we share, my Social Security benefits, or any other rights heterosexual couples simply take for granted. I couldn’t even afford to put him on my employer’s health insurance plan because the entire cost is considered to be taxable income. This inequality based on ignorance and prejudice is simply wrong.

I’m glad to see Don Mayer using Smalldog as his bully pulpit. Good to see social awareness put ahead of business interest – you go, Don!

A letter being sent to the Governor, the press and each Senator and Rep in the VT legislature:
We are presidents or CEO’s of some of the most highly successful Vermont businesses. Most of our companies are not within your legislative districts, so why are we writing to you today? We’re writing because your vote on the Freedom to Marry override affects the ability of all businesses in Vermont to recruit the talented people we need to to ensure the continued development of vital businesses in Vermont; the kind of businesses like Chroma which pay wages and have long futures in our state.

As you know, most of the higher paid jobs in traditional manufacturing companies, at which many Vermonters worked, are gone. Jobs in the tool and dye industry, the paper mills and the appliance factories are a small fraction of what they once were. They are being replaced by jobs in high tech, software development, specialty foods and the hospitality industry. These industries depend on a supply of smart, creative people to keep us ahead of our competitors.

Potential employees come in all sorts of colors, sizes and gender. We put forth our best offers to attract such people. We show them our beautiful state. We show them our quality schools. We show them the exceptional quality of life in Vermont. Sometimes our efforts work. Sometimes they don’t. Other states are beautiful. Other states have quality schools. Other states have exceptional quality of life.

Some of our potential employees are homosexual. We put forth the same efforts with these people. Sometimes these efforts work. Sometimes they don’t. Imagine if we could also tell them that in Vermont, the state recognizes their freedom to marry and enjoy all the rights and privileges associated with that commitment. That would give us an advantage that very few states have.

The generation that we are trying to attract is different from mine. They don’t care about racial, ethnic, gender or sexual orientation differences. They like living among people from diverse backgrounds. They gravitate to places where those differences make life more exciting.

You can help us attract the smartest, most talented, most creative members of the younger (also some older) generation. You can make sure that those who are homosexual have the right to marry, and you can make sure that those who aren’t have a social environment with those who are. You can do this by voting to override Governor Douglas’ veto. Your vote will move Vermont forward economically. I know, because that cross section of people is what moves our businesses forward.

Just ask the leaders of the new Vermont business class. We’ll be happy to tell you how freedom to marry makes for a better business climate.

Small Dog should keep out of politics. But since you opened up the matter.
I never had anything against gays, but MARRIAGE, no. Does this mean that if two straight people want to live together they have to get married?
By the way, who gets to flip the coin.

I applaud you for the courage to put this up, whether it has business consequences for you or not. I happen to agree with you, but even if I didn’t I’d support your right to post your own opinions. And your “Start soapbox” line should be sufficient.

I agree with others who have stated that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And that should be true whether the marriage is legalized in a religious or civil ceremony. Designating beneficiaries is a different matter.

Marriage is for a holy sacred union between the complimentary functional gifting the different genders bring together to a union as one. The other ‘unions’ are friends/buddies having same gender sex and wanting societal approval.

Wow, I just don’t know what to say, so many thoughts are coursing through my brain on this issue!
Thank you Don for your willingness to voice opinions on important topics. Enough voices can end discrimination & make it politically possible to do what’s right!!
Small Dog is awesome & I will keep recommending to all my friends because they do what is right, not easy!

Vermont will be celebrated by those on the side of justice when marriage for my gay and lesbian friends is possible. Thank you Don for supporting this. Those who fear and tremble at two loving people of the same sex wishing to spend the rest of their lives together enjoying the same benefits as a so-called traditional couple might just be a bit insecure of their own relationship. C’mon folks, don’t be selfish and let love be.

I’m not gay and only know a couple of gays. However, Don, i agree 100 percent that gays should be allowed to marry.

Your forthright opinion is one reason I use your company for my Mac Purchases.

My state, Virginia, passed a constitutional amendment to deny gay marriages. It also outlawed a non-marriage approval of a man and a women. I would have hoped our society has gone forward more than this.

Oh well. We’ll keep trying

Jim From Virginia

Thanks Don and Small Dog for your stand on same-sex employment.

Had it been in effect at the start of my career it would have saved me more than 50 years of lying, deceit, half-truths, and ambiguousness. I had a successful career but a less than successful life.

Don – hear, hear. I hope that Vermont can achieve this important goal and inspire my state, New York, to recognize and correct this longstanding injustice as well.

Some woman said her gay marriage is not a threat . She’s right, it degrades it. And others talk of equality. They can never be equal until God makes them to have children together. They why all creatures come in two sexes.

So: marriage, sex, and affection are just to make babies? Is that what you’re saying? If so, that’s news to many, many of your fellow Straight Americans.

And, it seems there are now more of us than there are of you, so I think you’d better be ready for the Big Change that is here, now.

Thank you, Don Mayer, for your courage on this and other issues, recently. This is part of why I give nearly all of my third-party Apple reseller business to Small Dog!

You can call it whatever you want but gay couples cannot by definition be “married”. Gay “marriage” is just an attempt to justify an “alternative lifestyle”.

What do you do when even your straight neighbors (like me) don’t think so?

I mean, who ARE you people?

Do you eat pork? Leviticus doesn’t like that, either.

Congrats to all supporters – VT Gay marriage passes via House and Senate override of Gov. Douglas’ Veto. I am proud to be a Vermonter today!

Thank you Don. Marriage Equality passed in a veto override here in VT due to courage and perseverance. My husband and I have been married for 30 years, and I am a Justice of the Peace. I support marriage equality and thank all the individuals and businesses for standing up for the “common unity” of our community.
best wishes,
Maggie

Congratulations VT! I am glad to see that gay marriage has been approved. Even though I am not gay, I do believe that same sex couples should be allowed to marry. Marriage is the ultimate representation of love for another person, not just someone of the opposite sex. Marriage should be an undiscriminating right to all people, no matter what sex, race, religion, or orientation.

Oh, and to post XXVII, I am pretty sure that not all creatures in the world have two sexes. That is why we have the term “Asexual” reproduction, for the creatures that are just “one” sex.

With acknowledgment to my gay friends but without apologies, marriage was intended from the start to be for a man and a woman. We are not evolving by changing the definition to include a same sex partner. Where does it end, because you know some other nut is going to want to be able to wed his donkey. And don’t try to include religion as another reason to make the change. Yeah, most religions are all for loving and so on. But the Bible I am most familiar with decrees that marriage is between a man and a woman. Small Dog, please stick with selling the best computer products in the world with the world’s best service from a reseller. Keep your politics and your religion to yourself, where it belongs.