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.

CA Prop 8 Trial

We're in Day 3 of the CA Prop 8 Trials in San Francisco in federal court. Lots of news press around this activity.

These 1-2 weeks will be an interesting series of discussions and debates to test the constitutionality of CA's Prop 8 last year banning same-sex marriage. Not only will a decision impact California, but it will also be influential to the rest of U.S. and the world.

It would be interesting to see how the courts interpret and apply the laws of our state and country, and how much it stands up for due process and helping protect people's rights, vs. popular opinion.

However, there is growing talk about a trend toward taking religious beliefs to courts too, that religious beliefs are being discriminated against when equality laws are passed. That's another related area worth debating too.

New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday the big news was around New Hampshire being the sixth state to legalize same-sex, marriage, after the legislature passed the bill, and Governor John Lynch signed.   However, careful language was inserted to give religious institutions the right to not perform same-sex marriages if they did not want to.   I think that is OK, to give people and organizations the right to act according to their own beliefs.   People can always change their religious faiths if they choose to do so too.

Maine approves Same-sex Marriage!

More news today, as Maine's governor signed a bill approving same-sex marriage.
Maine is now the 5th state to allow same-sex marriage.

Great quote by Governor John Baldacci - "In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions," Baldacci said in a statement read in his office. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."

Even more discussion now in D.C. and in the Obama administration about what to do next as more states are supporting the same-sex marriage movement...

Iowa high court legalizes gay marriage in state

The news this morning announced Iowa as the 3rd state, after Massachusetts and Connecticut, legalizing same-sex marriage by its Supreme Court.

California is still struggling as its Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage last year, but briefly overturned by voter election in November.

Iowa's ruling is important as it's the first state in (conservative) middle-America to make such a public statement.

Even though this is good progress, and we hope there will be more states following later, there is still an uphill battle continuing with remaining states and our U.S. Federal Government (see DOMA 3).   But it seems that strategies like specific lawsuits against the U.S. Govt on discrimination on specific issues are becoming more effective in making change, vs. rallying for general, broad equality across all issues.

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.

Prop 8 in California - What Next?

Election Day is a few days past us now, and most are glad to have Obama as our President-Elect.

In California and nationwide, many are still sad that Prop 8 passed in California, as well as similar anti-gay marriage laws in Arizona and Florida, to pass constitutional bans for anti-gay marriages. Soon after the election, an article on time.com explains that the surge in voting for these bans likely came from a large turnout of African-American voters who showed up to vote for Obama, but also greatly voted against same-sex marriages. It seems ironical that one population that has triumphed overcoming racial discrimination with our nation's first African-American president, still does not yet feel similar equality with another group of people facing similar discrimination challenges.

My friend Jennifer Donnelly this week wrote a nice article for WashingtonPost.com - reminding us of all the great things about marriage - whether gay or straight.

Surely there will be continued debates and lawsuits about same-sex marriage in California and in other states. Facebook groups have already started gathering supporters to continue the challenge.

The dangerous and sad thing about banning same-sex marriage is that our legal system has given power to the majority to legalize discrimination. Eventually, this will go away when future generations become the majority and laws are redecided. Throughout history, we've gone through many cycles where new ways of thinking were declared heresy and against common law, and people being different were often persecuted, ostracized, and oppressed. Whether it was believing the earth not being the center of the universe, believing the sun not being the center of the universe, believing the earth to be round, treating people of color equally, treating people of different genders equally, treating people of different sexual orientation equally, etc. - people believing in these new ideas always suffered to pave the way for future generations.

What if the world applied the thinking of banning anti-gay marriages to other similar situations? Here's what might happen (written with a large dose of sarcasm and cynicism):

- Because (only) a man and woman are intended to marry to create a family, maybe we'll have laws or taxes on couples if they do not intend to have children. After all, a marriage is intended to create a family and children, right? That would be crime not to have children, if one person didn't want children and the other did. It would take one eligible person away from the potential parent pool - what a shame.

- Maybe we'll have laws or taxes on parents who cannot have children for medical reasons? If you can't have children, too bad. Survival of the fittest. Why enable people to have children via technology if they can't create children in the first place. Should a natural (meaning naturally capable?) man and woman who are unable to create a family be granted the right to be or stay married? (by wording of Prop 8 - those who not natural marriage candidates should have their marriage rights removed)

- Maybe adoption should no longer be allowed - against the law. If you can't have children yourself, too bad. Adopting children is not natural.

Maybe there will be new laws extending to other groups of people...

- Maybe someone will propose a law or constitutional amendment to say that the U.S. President cannot be a woman - because men have always been president, and that model has always worked in our history and we're used to it. So it doesn't make sense to have a woman as president because of her gender. The world would not be used to it.

- Maybe someone will propose a law or constitutional amendment to say that women should not be CEO's of companies or have the right to work as (name any position) in a company - because historically that was the standard for a LONG time, and let's go back to that standard.

- Maybe someone will propose a law or constitutional amendment to say that people of a certain race or color should be treated differently, because they are different - because the world was that way for a long time, and let's go back to that standard.

In a global world of diversity now, it's sad to see so many are still living in homogeneous communities and still unaware of diverse people, and hence still scared of people different than themselves, or the stereotypical accepted images and profiles that they're trying to live up to themselves but sometimes are not.

Still, progress is being made and the right model will come through eventually.
In 2000 California voters voted 61% to ban gay marriages.
This year in 2008 it was only 52% that voted the same way. This shows that many heterosexuals are now supporting the gay equality movement.
Maybe the next time we vote for the same issue, more will be thinking with an open mind.
Good luck to everyone for a more equal and understanding world.

Connecticut Allows Gay Marriage

Another history news day today, as the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that gay couples have the right to get married. Connecticut is now the 3rd state to allow same-sex marriages, after Massachusetts and California.

The AP news article quotes Gov. M. Jodi Rel as saying, "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut," which is probably very true...

When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to free slaves, "Public opinion as a whole was against it." This always seems to be a common theme in our world history every time a new law or discovery comes around to improve human rights (support for gay rights), to reduce or end discrimination (anti-discrimination on race, color, etc.), or to set facts straight (stating the Earth NOT being in the center of the solar system or the universe). It seems that there's always a large group of people wanting to hang on to the traditional view at the expense of others, or their own fates, but eventually it gives way to a new truth down the line.