I don't think this is about making an actual splash. Maybe it was done for the benefit of the Google employees?

I would be surprised if this is noticed by the national media.

Almost definitely. Brin stated:"...it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8."

A company isn't just a profit machine. People live and work there to a degree. He probably saw some injustices in his company, and wanted to make a strong statement about how employees should be treated.

"There is no point taking a risk if there is no reward."

The reward is equal treatment for our gay brothers and sisters. The reward is doing the right thing, even if it means profits go down, not that I think they will. Are we so blinded by success and money here that we can't see a "reward" in helping a fellow human being?

> The reward is doing the right thing, even if it means profits go down

Unfortunately, the law says that the Google Board of Directors has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. If they decide to use the company in a way that is damaging to their shareholders' interests, they can be sued.

Securities laws were introduced about eight decades ago to protect the small investor. The concern was that the small investor had little control over the actions of a company. Therefore, he had to be protected from the possibility that the managers might take his capital and use it for their own private purposes. The law makes no judgment about whether those private purposes are base or noble. If you want to sell shares to large amounts of people, then you are constrained by law to act in their best interest.

Privately supporting equality for our gay brothers and sisters is one thing. Repurposing a publicly-held web services company to do so is quite another.

So if google came out against slavery or child molestation that would be a bad thing? I understand that the board has legal obligations, but to say that this is an issue that is even debatable is beyond ridiculous to me. Look at every companies "diversity" shot on their web page or brochure, companies like to show the public that they are caring and compassionate. This is no different.

> So if google came out against slavery or child molestation that would be a bad thing?

I didn't make the previous statement but I don't think that is what was meant. The point is that shareholder laws state that the purpose of the company is to make money for all shareholders, not to push a social agenda. A company can take a stand on issues but when profit and social issues collide the company is bound to follow profit.

I hear what you are trying to say - but I was questioning the approach, not the intent.

I understand, I have in no way judged your personal morals in this at all.

Perhaps secretly tilting all search results towards pro-gay-marriage websites would have been better?

Of course they could also pour millions into campaigns. But I don't see why they should have to - they chose to make that statement in their blog, and maybe prefer to spend the millions on other things. What is wrong with that?

That would be dishonest - not to mention a far graver threat to a free society than any legal bugaboo about what constitutes 'marriage.'

I meant my statement as irony.

I should hope so, but I'm too jaded to assume so anymore.