How major companies are lining up in support of gay marriage

Nearly 400 companies including Google, American Airlines, and even NFL franchises have submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage. Is this the mainstream support the movement for gay marriage needs?

J. Scott Applewhite/FILE/AP
FILE PHOTO- Gay rights advocate Vin Testa waves a rainbow flag in front of the Supreme Court in Washington in 2013. Thousands of businesses, religious groups, advocacy organizations and politicians who are filing legal briefs at the Supreme Court in support of gay marriage. The cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee will be argued April 28, and a decision is expected by early summer.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on the legality of gay marriage bans on April 28, same sex marriage proponents just gained a hugely influential supporter: Big Business.

Thursday, 379 of the largest companies and and staffers of American employees all signed onto a "friend-to-the-court" brief in support of gay marriage, including major names like Google, Goldman Sachs, and American Airlines. The Huffington Post has the complete list here.

"State laws that prohibit or decline to recognize marriages between same-sex couples hamper employer efforts to recruit and retain the most talented workforce possible in those states, the brief reads. "Our successes depend upon the welfare and morale of all employees, without distinction."

The brief in Obergefell v. Hodges argues that without a federal policy on gay marriage, employers and their employees suffer in a state of legal limbo. It also highlights the benefits of increased diversity in their respective workplaces.

The nine Supreme Court justices will be tasked with determining if states have the legal authority to ban same-sex marriage. They will hear an extended two-and-a-half hour oral argument over the legality of these bans that have been put into place in by state governments in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

In November, the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which is the federal appellate court for the above mentioned states upheld these states’ same-sex marriage bans. On Thursday, the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld Nebraska’s same-sex marriage ban, and set May 12 as the date to hear appeal arguments against gay marriage bans in Arkansas, Missouri and South Dakota, in addition to Nebraska, according to media reports. Arkansas, Missouri, and South Dakota also had their bans struck down in federal court. Arkansas and Missouri have since filed appeals to uphold bans. 

Having businesses united behind an issue has changed government policy in the past. One major example of this was the divestment movement from apartheid-era South Africa. From 1985 to 1990, more than 200 American companies cut all ties with the country, which resulted in a $1 billion loss of direct American foreign investment for the pro-apartheid South African regime, according to Investopedia.com.

The divestment movement started on college campuses, following Hampshire College's lead and by 1988, 155 colleges and universities combined had fully or partially divested from South Africa.

Though the colleges alone could not bring down apartheid, once the movement picked up steam, companies began dumping their stock holdings in South African firms and many pension funds divested from their South African assets. After growing pressure, Congress passed a series of economic sanctions against South Africa, which President Reagan vetoed initially. His veto was later overridden when the bill went back to Congress.

Though legalizing same-sex marriage on a Federal level and ending Apartheid are not perfect comparisons, both cases serve to illustrate that united economic pressure on the part of major industry at the right time can help end a discriminatory policy. The range of industries who co-signed the brief to the Supreme Court include the nation's largest banks, food giants like General Mills, professional sports teams like the New England Patriots, and the small mom and pop bakeries.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.