I completely disagree. This started as a tempest in a teapot, of the type that any competent CEO has to overcome on a weekly basis. So what, six years ago he donated a modest sum to a cause supported by half the population of California. Surely that can't make a difference today!

Then I read what he recently had to say on his personal blog. You can read it yourself; my takeaway was that if this was the way he handled this particular tempest in a teapot, he was most likely going to hit a concrete wall when there was a real crisis to handle.

In the end, this wasn't about a donation six years ago, or about his right to free speech. It was about the fact that his first public action as CEO now stank up the room worse than a Taco Bell fart.

If you can't tell silicon from silicone, don't become CTO. If you don't know how to do crisis management, don't become CEO.

An outstanding point! It presumes, though, the current and gerrymandered House districts. Redrawing state lines would also mean redrawing House districts, hopefully with less partisan bias.

I keep reading the sentence, "For Democrats, it could be straight out of a nightmare." How exactly is this true? If anything, the current system favors Republicans by overrepresenting rural (mostly red) states.

The main difference is in the language of marriage laws. Two consenting, non-related adults etc. etc. can get married IFF they are not of the same sex. The institution of marriage LEGALLY remains the same if the exclusion is removed, since that exclusion serves no functional purpose in the legal framework of marriage. To the law, a same-sex couple is the same as a different-sex couple that can't produce offspring (with each other).

If society decides to evolve towards polygamy, it certainly can do so, but laws and the judicial system have to changed in a much more fundamental way. The concept of divorce needs to be amended (who leaves whom? is the whole marriage severed when one of the spouses leaves? if not, who gets what?). We have to decide how biological and legal constructs matter (if X is child of A and B, who are married to each other and to C, how is the relationship between X and A different from that between X and C?).

None of those changes are too difficult to figure out, I suppose, but they are an obstacle that same-sex marriage doesn't have.

You'd think that people handling viruses and worms all day long would insist on excellent health insurance! :-)