Whitman's support for a 2008 anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative became a hot topic at a recent gathering of high-profile Silicon Valley women, the sort of crowd from whom Whitman would eventually like to raise money. The conversation inevitably turned to Whitman's gay marriage stance. One guest — we hear it was All Things D editor Kara Swisher, a longtime Wall Street Journal tech reporter, but haven't been able to confirm with Swisher — grilled the Republican candidate on why her lesbian family should be second class:

'I have children who are unprotected... I pay taxes just like you. Why do you get more rights than I do?' "

In the past, Whitman's campaign spokesman has parried questions like these, emphasizing Whitman's support for civil unions. On her own, Whitman took things a step further, her interrogator told the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Whitman said, 'You know, I just wish we could have one term for everything: civil unions,' I said, 'Bingo, sold, I'll take it.' "

But Whitman quickly backed down from the idea of making civil unions the sole relationship recognized by the state. According to her questioner, Whitman

"wouldn't say anything. ... She wouldn't say yes. ... She would not say, 'OK, I will do that.' " ([The Chronicle's] own efforts to get confirmation from Whitman's campaign team, in preparation for this item, failed. Calls were not returned).

At eBay, Whitman took on the image of a tolerant social liberal; after cozying up to Republicans Mitt Romney and John McCain in 2008 she came out against gay marriage. At a gathering in socially liberal Northern California, she said the government should get out of the marriage business; when the San Francisco Chronicle called to confirm, she couldn't be pinned down.

With a consistent statement on gay marriage, Whitman could cultivate California's social conservatives or its social liberal, and maybe win over enough moderates to become governor. With all this flip flopping, though, she just looks as confused as the trainwreck political party she's attached herself too, rather than one of its rising stars.

[SF Chronicle]

Watch how Whitman dude Mitch Zak, a Republican operative, interrupted a perfectly nice ladychat between ladyblog WowOwow's Randi Bernfeld and Whitman ladyfundraiser Jillian Manus to explain Whitman's stance on Proposition 8, California's gay marriage ban which voters passed last November:

Randi: I'm a little confused about one issue: Regarding Whitman's stance on Proposition 8 and gay marriage. She is against gay marriage but supports civil unions. Can you speak on that?


Mitch: I can help you on that one. Yes, she voted for Proposition 8, and to her that was a matter of her faith and her personal convictions. She does believe the term "marriage" should belong to the union of a man and a woman. But that said, she is absolutely a strong supporter of civil unions and it's evident by her leadership at eBay. It was tremendously inclusive in that regard. The one other distinction that she made is that the folks who were legally married when the law was in California, those folks should stay married.

Randi: I see.

Mitch: So it's not their fault that the law was what it was.

Many of eBay's numerous gay and lesbian employees are still steaming over Whitman's newfound opposition to same-sex marriage, which they believe has more to do with political opportunism than Whitman's religious faith, something she never mentioned even to close workplace confidants in her years at eBay. And it's hardly a popular cause among the demographic Manus, chair of Whitman's Women's Coalition, will target: White women opposed Proposition 8, 53 percent to 47 percent. That's probably Whitman's best defense for continuing to claim that her opposition to gay marriage is a matter of personal faith, not political expediency: It doesn't seem like a sure-fire vote-getter.

Whitman, as we've noted, is an oddity among Silicon Valley Republicans, who tend to worry more about lower taxes than hot-button social issues like abortion and gay marriage. In the Republican presidential primaries, she supported Mitt Romney, a Mormon with conservative social views. But it wasn't until recently that Whitman started talking about her own support for Proposition 8, California's recently passed ban on same-sex marriages.

Henry Gomez, the former eBay superflack who's serving as an advisor to Whitman, told me this week that Whitman's stand was "a personal issue." Many gay eBay employees agree. They see Whitman's stance as a deeply personal betrayal. As the CEO of a company in a liberal industry in a liberal region, Whitman never gave a hint that she didn't value gay and lesbian employees' relationships. It turns out she was just being politic.

Whitman's longtime executive assistant, Anita Gaeta, is a lesbian, who owns a house with her partner in San Jose. I tried to contact Gaeta to get her views on the matter, but she did not respond. Gomez tells me Gaeta continues to work for Whitman.

But leave personal feelings aside. As a practical matter, Whitman's support of Proposition 8 may backfire in fundraising and in the general election. Several current and former eBay executives, including founder Pierre Omidyar, lent their name to a newspaper advertisement opposing Proposition 8. Will they support Whitman's campaign now? Unlikely.

Her stance could also hurt her former employer's business. Already, eBay sellers are organizing a boycott because of Whitman's stance. And no company likes to be drawn into controversial causes. One might think that her handpicked successor, John Donahoe, might prevail on Whitman to moderate her stance for that reason alone.

California prefers its Republicans to be centrists — Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, another Proposition 8 opponent, is the best example of this trend. Whitman's top two contenders, former Representative Tom Campbell and Steve Poizner, the state's insurance commissioner, also opposed the proposition.

It all seems ill thought out — rather like Whitman's quixotic legal campaign to reclaim a set of domain names she failed to register before talk of her gubernatorial prospects became public. The sight of a tech billionaire harassing the small businessman who registered them are provoking giggles among California's Republicans.

Which is probably the right reaction to Whitman's stance on Proposition 8: not anger, but pity. Insulated by sycophantic advisors and accustomed to fawning coverage from a supine tech press corps, Whitman must not even realize what a joke her would-be political career is.

Sorry, but Prop 8 isn't something worth protesting. A state constitutional amendment can't be overturned by a state court. The only legal action left is claiming that it's an equal protection violation, but the Supreme Court would probably say that it isn't because equal protection applies to people, not rights; the state is providing the right to marry to almost everyone, even gays, provided they marry someone of the opposite sex. No one said there has to be love, and there are plenty of loveless marriages out there.

Did protesting 209 do anything? Tell them to be useful and start a petition to repeal the amendment.

The Supreme Court would probably uphold Prop 8, saying that the state is treating everyone equally unfair. A great example of what equal protection stops is the 2000 Florida recount (Bush v. Gore). The Court (7 justices) said that since different standards were being used in the recount, it was unconstitutional. With Prop 8, the standards, so far, have been applied fairly. What the equality camp doesn't mention is that gays can get married.

"...nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If it said "couple," Prop 8 would be unconstitutional because it treats couples differently, but it says person.

Now that I think about it, is a way that could lead to overturning Prop 8 through equal protection because it denies marriage to legal persons and the intersexed.

I haven't heard of any cases of the opposite happening, but I wouldn't be shocked if some socially conservative bloggers were similarly offended by no-on-8 ads placed on their blog by Google. Which returns me to my original question about these ads: If Google's algorithms are so good at placing ads, why aren't they able to gather whether a blog's audience generally supports or opposes gay marriage, and target ads where they'll do the most good?

(Screenshot by Scott Beale/Laughing Squid)

But we're not. A source told us it's being held at the rented mansion of Facebook board member Peter Thiel, the former PayPal CEO and founder of Clarium Capital, a hedge fund. Thiel backed Ron Paul in the primaries, but what we really want to know is: What is the gay investor's position on California's proposed gay-marriage ban? Festivities start at 6 p.m. Oh, need directions? Thiel is listed in the phone book.

Update: Lead21 chair Sonia Arrison writes:

Just thought I'd let you know that your information source for the location of the Lead21 election party was wrong. It is not at Peter Thiel's home, but it is at a location in the same general area.

If I find out more, I'll let you know.

(Photo by Eric Eldon/VentureBeat)

Right: Because it's an awesome branding opportunity. The draft is a self-parody of corner office drama, full of Honorary Co-Chairs, Leaders, and Former CEOs. But the real story is: Who's missing? Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt are here, but not Larry Page. Twitter's Ev Williams is here, but not Digg's Kevin Rose. Federated Media: Present. TechCrunch: Absent. Mark Zuckerberg is not here, but Sheryl Sandberg pulled a John Hancock: She's right up top, where Owen can't miss her. Oh, look, she's trying to make nice! She's going to be sorry.

Could there be better proof that Google's vaunted algorithms aren't any good at matching ads to a website's audience and content? It's hard to imagine anyone who reads gay blogs clicking on the antigay ads. Google makes most of its money on ads where it charges per click, not per view. What's embarrassing about this isn't politics — it's Google's performance. (Ironic disclosure: the writer of this item is a gay man who got married last month, on a website which runs some Google's AdSense ads. For all I know, Valleywag also ran some of these same laughably mistargeted ads.)

We hear that CEO Jerry Yang wrote a long, rambling, presumably uncapitalized email to the troops explaining why the company, which is otherwise outspoken on gay rights, is not taking sides on the issue. Gay employees at Yahoo are purple with rage. Will someone forward us the memo? We'd love to read Yang's explanation of why, once again, he can't make a decision one way or another. (Disclosure: I got married to my husband last month, and recently held a fundraiser in opposition to Proposition 8.)

The Google cofounders, according to Thomasson, "replaced all notions of God's truth by worshiping money as god." Also, the company makes fun of Easter and prefers "pagan-type holidays." Of course, no one seems to have told the CCF's Webmaster — the screenshot from CCF's page on current issues surrounding marriage in California asks users to search Google News for the latest updates on heathen abominations.
(Photo by AP/Steve Yeater, via Mangoes)