Carly Fiorina on Same-Sex Marriage

Today at my company, Carly Fiorina came in to speak in an open forum to our employees.

She spoke about her personal experiences, and how she received great opportunities from others to pursue leadership, which led to her career in leading HP, and perhaps later in government and politics too as she is running for U.S. Senator vs. Barbara Boxer.

During the Q&A section, I asked her about people's rights, specifically the same-sex marriage issue which has become a heated debate on state, federal, and international levels. I asked what she would consider to be an appropriate process for deciding such a controversial topic and policy.

She said that our country exists for the people, to be ruled by the people, and since marriage is closely related to religion for many people, she would recommend to put it up to popular vote (general election) to decide marriage laws in each state.

Although I applaud her for giving a clear answer vs. skirting the issue, for the purpose of supporting equal rights, I am somewhat disappointed in her answer. I understand the position of letting the general public vote and deciding things, but sometimes our country (and general population) unwisely decides on directions that take us backwards a step, away from the goal of freedom and equality which this country was chartered for.

GLAD CHALLENGES DOMA § 3

Yesterday GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) filed this lawsuit against the Federal Government for discrimination against same-sex married couples.

I think this is great that legal disparaties are brought out into the open even more, and action is started in the areas where the problem was created - in the Federal Courts.

It seems shameful, that our country's leaders have stated that "All men are created equal" in so many instances, like our Declaration of Independence, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Martin Luther King Jr's I Have a Dream speech, and several others, yet our Federal Government still (but maybe not much longer) upholds laws which identifies certain categories of people to be second class.

Some states, and more states over time, have revised laws to eliminate discrimination against people due to any type of identifiable characteristic.   That seems to be the better way for this world to embrace diversity, as we are now all living in a global culture, mixing together with people from other countries, other cultures, other religions and beliefs, and all shapes, sizes, ages, colors, lifestyles, appearances, family situations, etc.

Luckily, our history has shown our people to revise laws to improve our treatment toward each other - eliminating discrimination against race and sex, granting women the right to vote, granting interracial couples the right to marry, and others.   There are still a few more things to fix going forward, but we seem to be heading there.

2008 Google Annual Stockholders Meeting

Living here in Silicon Valley, I had the fortunate opportunity to attend Google's annual stockholders meeting today.
Lunch for the stockholders in Charlie's Cafe was fantastic as you would guess.
Nice review of Google's strong position and directions by CEO Eric Schmidt.
Lots of questions and discussion from the audience on Google's efforts to deliver tools in China to balance preserving freedom of information, and at the same time meeting the government's requirements on restricted information when necessary.
I also asked a question about their priorities between revenue growth in China and maintaining Google's principles of information freedom, a strong paradox in that country.
Visit the website to hear the podcast of Eric, Sergey, and Larry discuss Google's position on these issues.
I have to say Google is very smart in doing the right thing, and it clearly shows in the great products and services.