I think you could say this about a lot of social issues though. Taking any social stance will be a great way to get some employees, a great way to alienate some. I'm sure prospective Googlers are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage, so it's probably a net positive to them.

But let's suppose truckers were overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage, would it be ok for a trucking company to lobby against it? That would bother me just as much as a shareholder as Google's stance. (And more in my capacity as a citizen).

I think it's okay for them to lobby against it.

The term "political issue" doesn't really make sense to me, honestly. A political issue isn't really "political" so much as it's "currently in contention"; Catholic-Protestant civil wars in Europe were political as much as they were religious, because they had political impact. Gay marriage is a political issue because, and only because, it's under contention.

Thus, every issue is something a special interest might decide to take a stance on whether it's Google or a trucking company. The question is whether or not it's relevant, and it's demonstrably relevant to Google, which has gay employees. (It would be okay for Exodus International to lobby against gay marriage, too. Which I expect they do.)

Companies _already_ implicitly do stuff like this when they donate to e.g. the Salvation Army, an org which itself has an anti-gay agenda. It's "OK" in that it is legal and it is probably not unethical.

Is it be morally right? That depends, but public opinion in the US and in many (but obvs not all) other industrialized nations suggests that it is wrong.

Shareholders can and should vote with their feet if a company takes a position they don't like. Ostensibly that's one of the levers available to you in our glorious free market economy, amirite?

You might alienate religious people, but when I consider the merits of this particular topic, screw 'em. There's no reason their views (a choice) should trump other people's basic human rights.

From a shareholder's point of view then sure, the hypothetical trucking company should do that - except there are other considerations - shareholders who wouldn't want to invest in that company, bad press, other companies boycotting them... it's a lot easier for pro-gay companies to boycott a bigoted company than the other way around.

Of course morals come into play as well, personally I'd never run, work for or invest in a company that did that, and I like to think I'd still have that stance if I wasn't gay (actually I don't need to say "like to think", as I already have that stance for various other things that don't directly affect me).

Here's my concern though. It's one thing to get involved in a nation's politics where one reasonably understands what the costs and benefits are. It's a very different thing to get involved in a global campaign.

What's next? Convince Japanese and Indians to do away with arranged marriages? Where do we draw the line?

Or are we trying to remake the world in our image? That strikes me as very dangerous.

The US has always been remaking the world to its image; it's not always intentionally, though.

Personally, it bothers me more that there's a MacDonald's in every street corner than Google's campaign, even though the former isn't intended to promote any cultural values.

Yeah, I don't like the global reach of MacDonalds too.

But you haven't seen the horrible excuse for American food that is Pizza Hut internationally...... I swear after you see the Cheeseburger Pizza and the Chicken Nugget Pizza you will never complain about MacDonalds again....

How about a bus company owned by the richest man in the country lobbying against homosexuality being included within sex education in schools and then privately bankrolling a referendum, as happened in Scotland. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/693172.stm

In part I agree with The point of employee perk and marketing. My obscure view of capitalism justifies it even in light of the proposed arguments. My greatest fear is for the safety of employees in regions that will be hostile to this concept. It seems very dangerous to me. (btw .. I'm gay)