This Proposal:

This measure, ELIMINATES THE RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY by amending the California State Constitution to state that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. If you read my previous post regarding this ballot initiative, then you already know my feelings regarding this mean-spirited and bigoted initiative and the people supporting it. This proposed constitutional amendment is about one thing and one thing only: requiring the state to treat one class of citizens differently than another class of citizens. As a society, we’re supposed to have grown beyond that type of narrow-mindedness. We’re supposed to have left the days of racism, gender bias, and religious intolerance behind us. In the same way that it is wrong to discriminate against people of color, of different religions, of different genders, it’s wrong to treat same sex couples differently under the law than you treat heterosexual couples. These are human beings with the same right to fall in love, marry, and live out their lives in peace and freedom.

As for the argument that same sex couples are already protected by domestic partnerships laws, you should be aware that California statutes clearly identify nine real differences between marriage and domestic partnerships. Therefore, only real marriage provides gay couples with full protection under the law.

As for the argument that same sex marriage will be taught to children in public school, my response is, SO WHAT? At the most, children might be taught that people of the same sex are allowed to marry, although it is highly unlikely that this type of discussion would occur in the younger grades and they probably already know it anyway. And if this goes against some religious doctrine that some parents might wish to impart to their children, certainly these parents should have enough confidence in their influence upon their children’s upbringing to counter any confusion their children might experience. As I said in my previous post, regardless of whether or not you like how this group has chosen to live their lives or whether their choices make you uncomfortable or don’t fit in with your sense of morality, your right to disapprove does not trump their fundamental right to be treated the same as everyone else.

Finally, I predict that should this ballot initiative pass, it will be challenged in the courts, perhaps going all the way to the US Supreme Court. Let’s not waste taxpayer dollars in an attempt to codify bigotry into our state constitution.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 8

Related posts:

1. PROP 3 – Vote NO
2. PROP 4 – Vote NO
3. PROP 5 – Vote YES

This Proposal:

This measure, the NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION INITIATIVE STATUTE would divert certain persons convicted of nonviolent drug offenses into treatment programs rather than incarceration.

Specifically, the proposition would:
• Allocate $460,000,000 annually to improve and expand treatment programs for persons convicted of drug and other offenses.
• Limit court authority to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes, break drug treatment rules or violate parole.
• Substantially shorten parole for certain drug offenses but would increase parole for serious and violent felonies.
• Create a 19 member board to direct parole and rehabilitation policy.

The fiscal impact of passing this proposal would be to save taxpayers billions of dollars. Savings in excess of $1 billion annually due primarily to reduced prison and parole operating costs would be offset by an increase in state costs over time possibly in excess of $1 billion annually primarily for expanding drug treatment and rehabilitation programs. There would be an additional savings in excess of $2.5 billion due to decreased costs for prison facilities.

Background:

The state operates 33 state prisons and other facilities that had a combined adult inmate population of about 171,000 as of May 2008. The costs to operate the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in 2008–09 are estimated to be approximately $10 billion. The average annual cost to incarcerate an inmate is estimated to be about $46,000. The state prison system is currently experiencing overcrowding because there are not enough permanent beds available for all inmates. As a result, gymnasiums and other rooms have been converted to house some inmates. Addiction and substance abuse are major driving forces for the current overcrowding crisis. Over the past two decades, the number of incarcerated nonviolent offenders has more than tripled—from 20,000 in 1986 to over 70,000 in 2006. About 20% of prisoners in California are incarcerated for a drug offense.

Proposition 36, a ballot measure approved by the voters in November 2000, established a drug treatment diversion program for offenders who are convicted of specific crimes designated as nonviolent drug possession offenses. Under Proposition 36, an offender can be sentenced to probation and treatment, instead of prison or jail. Some parole violators are also eligible for Proposition 36 diversion. Proposition 36 limits when and how sanctions, such as jail or prison time, are imposed on offenders who violate the conditions of their drug treatment programs or commit new drug possession crimes. That program has graduated more than 84,000 people and saved California taxpayers over $1.5 billion since 2001. Proposition 5 would expand that program.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote YES. Drug addiction should be treated for what it is, a health issue rather than a law enforcement issue. This proposal would save billions of taxpayer dollars and free up much needed prison space for real criminals. Although opponents claim that Prop 5 would allow drug dealers and felons to avoid jail, this is a distortion of the truth. Offenders convicted of a serious or violent felony are not eligible for diversion. Prop 5 only impacts nonviolent drug offenders and does not prohibit judges from using their discretion. Under Prop 5, a nonviolent offender with a drug problem may be diverted to treatment, if the judge finds that drugs motivated the nonviolent crime and that drug treatment would be in the best interests of public safety. The offender does not make that call—the judge does.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 5

Related posts:

1. PROP 3 – Vote NO
2. PROP 4 – Vote NO
3. PROP 5 – Vote YES

What would you do with $25Million? How many people could you feed, house, clothe? How many underprivileged children could you give a chance at a better life? How much good could $25Million do in the world?

Well apparently, there’s a group of people in our society who can think of nothing better to do with $25Million than to squander it in an attempt to institutionalize discrimination against another group of citizens. I’m of course talking about Proposition 8, put forward to circumvent a recent California State Supreme Court ruling recognizing that homosexual couples have the same right to marriage equality as everyone else. As recently reported by the LA Times, the backers of Prop 8 have raised over $25Million in their quest to pass this initiative which would amend the State Constitution to eliminate that right.

Now I’m a firm believer that people should be free to spend their money as they see fit, but I also believe I have the right to publicly criticize them for their choices. Especially when that choice amounts to an attack on one of the most fundamental rights we have in this country, the right to be treated equally under the law. For, whatever you might personally believe about homosexuality, or whatever arguments you might have in favor of or against Prop 8, this proposed constitutional amendment is about one thing and one thing only: requiring the state to treat one class of citizens differently than another class of citizens. As a society, we’re supposed to have grown beyond that type of narrow-mindedness. We’re supposed to have left the days of racism, gender bias, and religious intolerance behind us.

And yet there are still those who would use the power of government to restrict other people’s rights rather than to protect their rights. To these people I say this – your actions are shameful and the antithesis of every principle this country was founded on. In the same way that it is wrong to discriminate against people of color, of different religions, of different genders, it’s wrong to treat same sex couples differently under the law than you treat heterosexual couples. These are human beings with the same right as you to fall in love, marry, and live out their lives in peace and freedom. Regardless of whether or not you like how this group has chosen to live their lives or whether their choices make you uncomfortable or don’t fit in with your sense of morality, your right to disapprove does not trump their fundamental right to be treated the same as everyone else.

And spending $25Million, money that otherwise could be used towards the betterment of society, in order to ensure that others are treated differently, is simply wrong. Shame on you.

Related posts:

1. PROP 3 – Vote NO
2. PROP 4 – Vote NO
3. PROP 5 – Vote YES