Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein in Same-Sex Marriage Ad
EmailGoldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein has become the first major CEO to lend his support to the Americans for Marriage Equality campaign promoting same-sex marriage.
In a 30-second video, Blankfein said, “America’s corporations learned long ago that equality is just good business and is the right thing to do.”
The video was released on Monday by the Human Rights Campaign on its website and on YouTube. Blankfein’s ad is the twelfth video for the campaign which has included notable figures including New York Giants’ owner Steve Tisch, whose ad was released in June, actor John Leguizamo and NFL Cleveland Browns’ linebacker Scott Fujita. The Human Rights Campaign launched Americans for Marriage Equality in October 2011 with Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, N.J.
“Corporate America has long since been a leading agent of change and progress for LGBT equality,” Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement. “While the federal government continues to discriminate against committed and loving same-sex couples, America’s companies and executives like Goldman Sachs and Lloyd Blankfein have made equality for LGBT people a top priority.”
Investment bank Goldman Sachs, based in New York City, has a non-discrimination policy in place that includes sexual orientation.
Goldman Sachs and other investment banks have attracted criticism from groups like Occupy Wall Street for supporting wealth inequality. But Goldman Sachs’ average employee bonus was down over 50 percent last year. According to a regulatory filing on Friday, Blankfein’s bonus was cut in 2011, but he received $7 million in restricted shares, down from $12.6 million in 2010. He also reportedly has a base salary of about $2 million.
Memorial Day Deals 
Man Charged in Deposit Error Spending Spree 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
What a crap story. You need to make up your mind what it’s about and not mix two completely different ideas/controversies in the same story. Is this about gay marriage or obscene bonuses. Decide and rewrite this.
Posted by: Working_Class | February 6, 2012, 11:18 am 11:18 am
You need to make up your mind what it’s about and not mix two completely different ideas/controversies in the same story. Posted by: Working_Class | February 6, 2012, 11:18 am.
Way to focus on what’s important here.
Posted by: A Cynic | February 6, 2012, 11:28 am 11:28 am
Marriage is between a man and a woman. If you don’t like it, take it up with God, because He designed it to be that way.
Posted by: randy | February 6, 2012, 11:42 am 11:42 am
Just cuz you can bump uglies doesn’t mean you can redefine marriage for the rest of us. Never used goldman-sachs before and I especially won’t now.
Posted by: coggs | February 6, 2012, 11:54 am 11:54 am
Who cares what he thinks really! I am getting tired of the gay agenda being forced down everyone’s throat. The majority of Americans do not think it is normal so quit trying to convince us it is. Geez, even kids know its not normal for a man to be with a man and a woman to be with a woman. Do it if you want, it is a free country, but quit trying to make me agree. I don’t and I never will! And if you think you have it bad in America try going with the tolerant and peace-loving Muslims.
Posted by: Seriously | February 6, 2012, 11:56 am 11:56 am
A Cynic: That’s exactly my point. Where’s the focus of the article? Is it about a gay marriage or is it about CEO pay and bonuses? I’d love to focus on whatr’s important in this article. Too bad the wrtiter obviously doesn’t know what that is, either.
Posted by: Working_Class | February 6, 2012, 12:05 pm 12:05 pm
Lloyd obviously blows more than just investor’s money.
Posted by: SamIam | February 6, 2012, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
LOL! I wondered how long it would take the religious homophobes to show up here, spouting their dogmatic drivel because they have no legal or secular argument to oppose gay marriage. Don’t like gay marriage? Then don’t marry a gay person! Don’t like being denied basic civil rights? THEN DON’T DENY THEM TO OTHERS! You freakin’ hypocrites need to keep your prurient noses out of everyone else’s bedroom and work on saving your own damn marriages. Since HALF of all hetero marriages end in divorce, and adultery is rampant among the self proclaimed Religious Right. Oh that’s right, I forgot. For YOU, it’s “Do as I say but not as I do.” You whine about your rights being taken away as you deliberately push to take away the rights of others. Hypocrites.
Posted by: A Cynic | February 6, 2012, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
A Cynic: That’s exactly my point. Where’s the focus of the article? Is it about a gay marriage or is it about CEO pay and bonuses? Posted by: Working_Class | February 6, 2012, 12:05 pm.
Pick one and run with it. No one gives a crap anyway, and we aren’t solving anything here on this forum. So pick one and have at it.
Posted by: A Cynic | February 6, 2012, 12:16 pm 12:16 pm
Just what I need..Another frumpy middle aged ,east coast liberal patronizingly dictating how I should think.
Posted by: Julio G. | February 6, 2012, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm
Bigots hiding behind religion…that’s nothing new…bigots used religion to try and deny women a right to vote…bigots used religion to keep school segregated…and now bigots use religion to deny all people the right to marry…and you know what, bigots? you won’t stop it…gay marriage will be legal, nationwide, in our lifetime…there’s nothing you can do about it…and history will look back at you in the same way it looks back on every other group mentioned.
Posted by: Superdave35 | February 6, 2012, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm
A Cynic: A good article picks one subject and covers it in depth. This article does not do that. Even if you want to “pick one” you can’t run with it because the author has not included enough useful information on either topic. I was pointing out to the author or editor that this was poorly presented story.
Posted by: Working_Class | February 6, 2012, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm
Ironic cynic, how anyone that finds the gay lifestyle to be disgusting is a bigot. Good thing we have you and the gaystapo to tell us how and what to think.
Posted by: Charli | February 6, 2012, 1:55 pm 1:55 pm
You can’t be against same sex marriage and for the US Constitution.
Posted by: glacia | February 6, 2012, 1:55 pm 1:55 pm
Umm actually you can be for the Constitution and against special interest groups..Especially in that the Constition doesn’t mention vile sexual acts being a criteria for any rights.
Posted by: Charli | February 6, 2012, 2:02 pm 2:02 pm
Charli, the only thing you proved is that you need a class in Constitutional law. This isn’t about any special interest group unless you count the religious groups who hide like cowards behind the US Constitution while they spit on it. Let me attempt to educate you… The US Constitution requires the states to extend legal protections to all if it extends them to any. A single state issued and sanctioned contract extends over 1000 legal protections. By denying that contract to gays and lesbians states are denying 14th amendment rights. By denying those rights without a legal basis they are also violating due process. Charli… people like yourself don’t care about the US Constitution because you don’t even know what it is or what it means. You don’t demonstrate that you truly believe in the Constitution by crying about your own rights. You only truly demonstrate that you believe in the document when you accept that the people you least agree with also deserve those rights. You don’t believe in the US Constitution because you selfishly want the rights for yourself while denying them to others. You can’t be against same sex marriage extending 14th amendment rights and for the US Constitution.
Posted by: glacia | February 6, 2012, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm
Again “orientation” or self proclaimed social classes based on them are NOT mentioned or provided for in the US Constitution no matter how badly you WISH it to be. Looks like you need to “e-d-u-c-a-t-e” yourself. Nice try . LOL
Posted by: Charli | February 6, 2012, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm
@Charli, Since I didn’t mention either your post isn’t relevant. Same sex marriage is about upholding the US Constitution and the fact that you didn’t even attempt to refute it says that you can’t. Pretend to laugh if it makes you less embarrassed about your lack of knowledge of the US Constitution but it changes nothing. Like everyone who has opposed Constitutional rights you’re on the wrong side of history.
Posted by: glacia | February 6, 2012, 4:15 pm 4:15 pm
Trust me the laughing is authentic. Your denial of reality is in itself unbelievable. Again, proclaiming something doesn’t make it true. The US Constitution is what it is. If you want marital rights for gays, write your congressman and have them ADD an amendment.
Posted by: Charli | February 6, 2012, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
@Charli. You’re just continuing to flaunt the fact that you don’t understand that subject. No amendment is necessary nor is any new law. It’s the people trying to stop same sex marriage that are rushing to amend state constitutions and fast-track laws against it. Because from a legal standpoint same sex marriage is indistinguishable from any other marriage. In the end it’s simply a waste of time and money because states can’t amend their constitutions nor can they enact laws that conflict with the US Constitution. And what makes it true are the facts backed up with the highest law of the country. So far all you’ve done is post meaningless rhetoric against the US Constitution; you know it… I know it and everyone else can read it.
Posted by: glacia | February 6, 2012, 5:04 pm 5:04 pm
Glad to see Corporate America speaking out for Marriage Equality. In Canada they don’t call it Gay or Lesbian Marriage, they call it Marriage.
Posted by: Slade | February 6, 2012, 9:09 pm 9:09 pm
Again Glacia, as much as you want it to be the argument for gay marriage is not stipulated in the Constitution. You can repeat yourself as loudly and as often as like, but at the end of the day you are still incorrect as you would be color blind in saying that red and green are the same. You NEED an Amendment if you want to change the law of the land. Which incidentally and thankfully will never pass.
Posted by: Charli | February 6, 2012, 9:24 pm 9:24 pm
@Charli. Sorry but you still have no idea what you’re talking about. The law of the land is the US Constitution. Go back read my 2:24 pm post that you couldn’t find a response to and try again. Trust me you won’t find a way around states obeying the 14th amendment. The states tied their hands with the very first legal protections they tied to a contract they chose to call ‘marriage’. But all you have to do to prove me wrong is demonstrate it. You haven’t because you can’t.
Posted by: glacia | February 6, 2012, 9:36 pm 9:36 pm
You know Charli, you should be embarrassed to imply that Constitutional law amounts to a word search of the document. It’s truly shameful how little some US citizens know about that poor abused document. Tell you what go look up the 1967 Supreme Court case of Loving V. Virginia that struck down laws against interracial marriage as unconstitutional and ask yourself how that could have happened when interracial marriage isn’t “stipulated in the Constitution”.
Posted by: glacia | February 6, 2012, 9:42 pm 9:42 pm
I but do know what I’m talking about. The Constitution makes no mention of your special interest group.Your aforementioned and signifcant only to you previous post is irrelevant because of this. Why would I ever be embarrassed? I’ve never been against interracial marriage. But keep trying and keep me smiling.
Posted by: Charli | February 6, 2012, 10:23 pm 10:23 pm
Oh well, you can cover your eyes and pretend the US Constitution doesn’t exist if that makes you feel better. And since you still have no response other than pretending the US Constitution doesn’t exist there’s really no need to try to convince you that it does. Denying same sex marriage denies 14th amendment rights. End of argument since you still have no rebuttal to that.
Posted by: glacia | February 6, 2012, 10:30 pm 10:30 pm
Nope, read the Constitution, And NOT mentioned anywhere(14th Amendment or otherwise) are special interest groups based on sexual orientation. Imagine that.
Posted by: Charli | February 7, 2012, 1:09 am 1:09 am
Glacia is on shaky ground. Gay people have the same rights as to marry as does anyone else. It is not a “constitutional right” to allow gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gay people have the right, along with everyone else to marry a person of the opposite sex. That is NOT discrimination.
Discrimination would be if the law stated “Polish people” could not marry or a black woman and white man were precluded from being allowed to marry one other.
If the government wants to set up a government recognized “civil union” for gays that is their perogative.
But we have to stop our ridiculous habit of re-defining words whenever it suits our purpose, otherwise we will end up with a “tower of babble.”
Posted by: Dave C | February 7, 2012, 8:59 am 8:59 am
@Dave C, you’re on no ground at all. Every citizen has a constitutional right to equal protection. There are over 1000 legal protections that the states have tied to a single contract. That’s pretty much the end of the story. There is no definition of marriage being between a man and a woman, that is a consistent lie but still a lie. And your argument of “They have the same right” has been tried before in 1967. Supporters of the laws against interracial marriage made that argument and it failed. And just like the 1967 interracial marriage case this is not about discrimination; it’s about equal protection and due process. Lastly the ‘civil union’ argument is just rehashing the failed separate but equal argument. Without writing literally thousands of new laws and the federal government forcing states to have civil unions, civil unions can’t give the same equal protections as a single state issued contract. Same sex marriage in every state is an inevitability and the only thing stopping it now is the cowardice of politicians. Like everyone who has argued for restricting Constitutional rights you’re on the wrong side of history.
Posted by: glacia | February 7, 2012, 12:22 pm 12:22 pm
He probably doesn’t want to be left out.
Posted by: crusty | February 7, 2012, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm
The amount of fear and hatred in this comments section is shocking. And once again a conversation about ethics is swallowed by obedience to the Constitution. I mean, what do those five pages, or whatever, *really* mean? If we could just do some literary interpretation, we wouldn’t have to have a conversation about right and wrong. The video strikes me as a total PR move. If Lord Blankcheck wanted to advocate for gay marriage (which he refers to as a tepid ‘marriage equality’), he should advocate for gay marriage. If Blankcheck wanted to improve the image of his company, which is about a ‘zero’ in the public eye, he would equate current American business practices with equality, which everyone knows is a complete joke as wealth inequality has never been higher, anywhere, in the history of the world, than in contemporary America.
Posted by: Orion Jones | February 20, 2012, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm