Tim Cook Speaks Up

>No, they didn't. 52% of those who voted on Prop 8 (about 79% of the ~17M eligible and registered to vote, which were themselves only about 45% of Californians) voted for Prop 8 -- so about 19% of Californians voted for it.

So the rest were either not competent to voice their opinion (below voting age), did not have sufficient stake for their opinion to matter or have proved their opinion doesn't count (residents who did not meet local requirements for franchisement or whose franchisement has been revoked, e.g., convicted felons), or simply didn't care enough to go make their opinion heard. I'd say 52% is still a fair number to quote, even if it may not be literally true if you're counting babies and other persons who are legally ineligible from having an opinion.

>After all, opinions change.

Sure, but not all that much that quickly. The latest polls show 45% of the American population still opposes same-sex marriage. While the opinion has shifted from majority to minority after relentless media campaigning, much like that in the article, there are still a very large number of people that hold it; it's still a "popular opinion".

This is going to sound callous, but my reaction is: big deal.

And this should be everybody's reaction, IMO. I'll explain momentarily.

Being gay isn't easy if you aren't in a supportive environment. Hell, being gay will get you killed in some cultures and countries. In some places you'll merely be shunned and disowned by your family and friends. As a straight guy, I know this. How?

Because for the last 20 years or so, I've heard this again and again. The LGBT movement is nothing if not vocal and persistent, even to the point of being heavy-handed. I'm not saying I'm unsympathetic, I'm just saying that if there's a target demographic for "awareness", I haven't classified to be in that group for years.

So when Tim Cook officially announces his sexuality, I'm well aware that this isn't something as casually mentioned as being left-handed, having AB- blood type or a peanut allergy, preferring cats over dogs, or liking the color yellow. I'm also aware that for LGBT folks who haven't come out, seeing a successful person do so can be encouraging and inspiring.

Now regarding my "big deal" reaction...

While civilization will never be without bigots of one form or another, if we as a society are ever going to get past racial/gender/sexual issues, then disclosures like Cook's need to be unremarkable. Comparing America's reaction to Billy Crystal simply playing a gay man on "Soap" in the 80s to today, it seems like we've come a long way in a relatively short time compared to other social movements.

By the same token, an incident earlier this year demonstrated that the tech industry is probably the one of most gay-friendly business sectors to be in. Ironically, Brendan Eich was attacked, ostracized and shunned for his beliefs because they weren't gay-friendly. As an outsider, it does not appear that being a gay CEO in the California high-tech industry is as much of a burden as, say, a restaurant owner in Istanbul.

Finally, Tim Cook is worth upwards of $400 million. Like all wealthy individuals, he is generally insulated from contact with the rest of us simply because of his lifestyle: he doesn't take the bus, doesn't live in an apartment or typical suburban neighborhood, and certainly doesn't work in a cubicle. He likely won't encounter hate unless he tries to personally negotiate the opening of an Apple store in Moscow or Tehran. He's not a monster because he's rich (as far as I know he might be a really nice guy), but he's hardly an "everyman". For what it's worth, I had a similar reaction when many people were showering Mark Zuckerberg with praise for learning Chinese: hell, if I was that rich, I'd have time (and money) to learn Chinese from the best tutors.

In short, anyone announcing that they're gay should garner a "so what?" reaction because as a society we should be moving towards a person's actions being more important than their appearance, beliefs, or sexual orientation. And a multimillionaire making such an announcement today should elicit yawns because he is not representative of a typical person.

Edit: Not surprised by the downvote without explanation. Congratulations, sir or ma'am: you're part of the problem.

Many seem to think that he wrote that in the letter just to annoy Robert Hooke, who was rather short in height.

Hey, how awesome of you to drag stereotypes into this …

If you had read the article it should become quite clear to you why quite a few people knew and some people even wrote about it.

Since in general journalists will avoid to publish the sexual orientation of someone unless that person made public statements about it, most journalists just didn’t write about it. (I think that’s exactly the right guideline to follow. It is awesome when people come out to help others who are struggling, but this is still a personal decision and I don’t think journalists should make that decision for people. There should never be an obligation to come out.)

There were at least a couple of places where it was mentioned earlier this year (and it was kind of "known" in the past too).

Two links from April 2014: Out Magazine - http://www.out.com/out-exclusives/power-50/2014/04/15/what-d...

HuffPo (about the same) - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/out-power-50-most-p...