California Propositions 2010

Here's how I'm voting on the 2010 propositions on Nov 2. As of this writing, my decisions are based on the (extremely small) amount of research I've done. I will update this post as my opinions change, so feel free to comment and tell me how wrong I am.

YES on 19: Makes it legal to possess less than an ounce of marijuana. People are already using marijuana, so let's go ahead and make it legal -- and tax it! I know there are a lot of issues with this law, and it may not hurt the Mexican drug cartels as much as we want it to. But I still would rather it be legal.
YES on 20: Don't allow legislators to draw their own districts. Seems like a pretty simple choice to me.
YES on 21: Adds $18 to the cost of owning a car, to fund state parks and wildlife conservation. I'm kind of indifferent on this one but $18 isn't THAT much and our state parks can probably use the money.
NOT SURE on 22: Prevents money that belongs to local government from being taken by the state. If there is money that is supposed to go to local governments and local projects, then the state shouldn't be allowed to take it just because they can't find their own source of funding. But according to the "No" arguments, that funding is NEEDED for important things like police and firefighters. Sounds like the way our state works is super broken and I can't tell if a "Yes" or a "No" on this will make it any less broken.
NO on 23: This would suspend a law passed in 2006 that would get the state to reduce emissions by 2020. I feel like reducing emissions is a good thing, so no on this one.
NOT SURE on 24: Something about taxes and businesses. I can't tell if this affects small businesses that really need the tax break, or huge ones that frankly don't. I need to read more about this one.
YES on 25: Punishes the state legislators by taking away their paycheck if they don't pass the budget (which is admittedly pretty mean, but I think they'll survive, because they'll be pretty unlikely to be super late like they always are now) and more importantly makes it so that a majority of the legislature needs to pass the budget, not a 2/3 supermajority. Maybe if this passes, we won't pay all our state employees in IOUs.
NO on 26: Makes it harder to create/increase certain taxes by requiring a 2/3 vote of the legislature or voters, instead of a simple majority. Look, I know taxes suck, but I feel like if we require a 2/3 vote to increase pretty much ANY tax, then we'll never get anything passed.
NO on 27: This is pretty much the exact opposite of Prop 20 -- it gives all the power to draw district outlines back to the legislators.

So there you go. Tell me how super wrong I am on the above points, or help me with my "not sure" ones. Also, just sayin': Almost all of the official pro and con groups are called "Citizens For Lower Taxes" or "Taxpayers Against Evil Things" or "Just A Bunch Of Totally Reasonable Everyday People Who Are Totally Reasonable, We Promise, And Are In Favor Of Things That Everyone Loves Like Ice Cream And Puppies. I Mean, You Don't Hate Puppies, Do You?" It's a little sketchy, am I right?

USC Ally Discussion: Pro-Gay Marriage and Anti-Homophobia Intervention Strategies

I went to this event today. Here's the full description:

Ally Discussion: Pro-Gay Marriage and Anti-Homophobia Intervention Strategies
Featuring Jade Agua, Assistant Director for Asian Pacific American Student Services and Rev. Jim Burklo, Associate Dean for Religious Life
12- 1 pm
WPH 403
On the day the California Supreme court begins to hear arguments about Propostion 8, USC Allies will learn intervention strategies on how to combat homophobia and also advocate for marriage equality. Some topics to be discussed how to use religion in favor of gay marriage and how to start these conversations with our friends and family.

Basically we just talked about the different anti-gay arguments that tend to come up a lot, particularly those that were used during the prop 8 campaign, and the best ways to combat them. I took some notes along the way, so I just wanted to post some scattered thoughts and good quotes.

• The first thing Jim talked about was how his own homophobia was cured over the course of about 20 minutes, as a result of a close friend coming out to him. It's important to represent ourselves and the gay community as real people so that people can't think of us as "those people up in the Castro"--we're just people like everyone else. Later on, someone mentioned that people associate homosexual couples with sex. They see gay families as an environment where innocent children are surrounded by sex all the time. Seems to me, the solution is probably to make gays seem like ordinary people.
  
• When he was growing up, gay rights was a nonissue, in the sense that it wasn't something people thought about or talked about at all. Sometime soon, it will be a nonissue, in that nearly everyone will just agree that same-sex marriage is okay.
• He believes that the people and the churches will lead this movement. (Obviously not all churches, but some of the more "progressive" ones.) Then the law will follow. This goes against the feeling I had recently, "There's no point in us fighting much more right now. It's the court's move at this point." That was largely an excuse I made to myself anyway, because I was sick of doing campaign work.
• Jim moved on to talking about the Bible. The type of same-sex relationships we're talking about (committed, monogamous) are never mentioned in the Bible. Jesus himself didn't mention homosexuality at all. He does, however, have something to say about divorce. In any case, progressive Christians are not required to believe everything the Bible says.
• Jim and Jade did a little role-play, Jade playing a yes-on-8 voter who is uncomfortable going against the Catholic Church. Jim reminds her that even the Catholic church admits that you must listen to your conscience--the voice of God within you--when it is in conflict with the Church.
• He also emphasizes religious freedom. No one wants there to be an official religion of the state. One of the students in attendance (who was half of an adorable gay couple) points out that this argument must be approached very carefully, because the yes voters want their children to be "free from having the beliefs of others forced upon them." A great point about that: Teaching kids about something is not the same as teaching them that it is good or they should do it.
  
• There are a lot of sins in Leviticus that no one would ever seriously suggest we legislate against. I didn't catch the title, but there's a book about someone who tried to follow Leviticus literally for one year. Supposed to be very funny.
• More on the Bible: St. Paul condemns homosexual relationships. But he also condemns heterosexual relationships, advises everyone not to have sex at all, unless absolutely necessary. He's also completely opposed to marriage and family life. (If I understood correctly, reproduction isn't necessary because the second coming of Jesus is only a few years away.)
  
• The slippery slope argument: If we let gays get married, how do we know this won't open the door to pedophilia, incest, etc. The key is to point out that we're talking about consenting adults. Children and animals are not in that category. Also, remind people that those are completely separate, unrelated issues.
  
• Jade: "The traditional family is a myth. Somebody made it up in the 50's and they've been promoting it on TV ever since."
• This is important: According to some study, people don't vote for rational reasons. Their votes are usually based on emotional reasons. This of course goes back to the common complaint that the no on 8 campaign should have used actual images of gay couples. But with that in mind, what are the appeals to emotion that we can make? The suicide rate among GLBT kids is still relatively high. Not that we can change that overnight, but the way the government/society treats them might have something to do with it.
• http://www.soulforce.org/ is a resource for gay Christians. Jim described it as "PFLAG for evangelicals"
• Rick Warren is slowly beginning to change his stance. He's removed all the anti-gay language from his website and invited Melissa Etheridge to speak at his church. This was news to me!
• I think the most annoying argument I hear is that prop 8 is the "will of the people." Democracy is not the same as majority rule. There's a reason we have courts and a Constitution.
• Jade recommends talking to the yes voters you know, and who may be persuadable, not worrying about the far "right wing" people.
  

If you have friends who voted yes, and you probably do, talk to them. It's not easy, but it's necessary. No matter what happens 90 days from now, we should continue to fight, and dispell the myths from the campaign that many people still believe.

Note to Obama

I realize that Obama himself is unlikely to actually read this, but I'm submitting it on the change.gov website and I'd like to think that maybe some intern or assistant somewhere might read it and, you know, take a note. Hopefully it does some small part to counteract all the letters they're getting from the "EQCA Action Center."

I worked very hard during the summer and fall of last year for a political campaign--something I had never done before because no person or issue had motivated me. And no, sorry, it was not the Obama/Biden campaign. While I was quite happy to see you win the election, my efforts focused on trying to defeat California's Proposition 8. I appreciated both Obama's and Biden's opposition to that proposition, and I am very disappointed that it passed, not just for the thousands of devoted same-sex couples statewide, but because I might like to get married myself one day.

A few weeks ago, I got an email from Equality California, asking me to write to Obama and his team, and express my intense outrage at his decision to allow Rick Warren, a vocal opponent of gay rights, to speak at the Inauguration. However, this is one of those times when I had to disagree with EQCA's views. In this case, I believe you have shown more maturity than many of the gay-rights leaders in this country. Rather than label our opponents as hateful, ignorant bigots, you have clearly expressed your disagreement with them on certain issues, but then shown them that you respect their views and do not think they are bad people just because they have such beliefs.

I see the passage of Prop 8 as a huge step backward for my state, and it angers and saddens me to know that people like Rick Warren are largely responsible for it. Nonetheless, I hope my voice will stand out as part of a minority within the LGBT community -- as someone who understands and supports the decision to allow him to speak.

It would be wonderful to have a president who agreed with me on everything. Instead, I have one who has committed to look at both sides of every issue. Realistically, that's probably the best I can hope for, which is why I look forward to hearing Rick Warren's comments on the 20th, and to the next four years.

Looking Forward

Okay, so we lost. We're all angry about it. If it's going to take you a while to stop being angry, I understand. In fact, you probably shouldn't plan on ever "getting over it." So write angry facebook notes, take to the streets, unfriend the people who voted yes, whatever you need to do.

But I'm going to try to do what I can to look forward. Right now there are already lawsuits being filed, and whether anything comes from those or not, it's not clear what the next step will be. Whether it will come through the courts, the legislature, or another proposition showing up on the ballot, we don't know. But regardless of what it is, proposition 8 has started a long conversation on same-sex marriage, and I think it's important that we allow this conversation to move in a new direction.

To the "yes on 8" voters:

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman in this state, up until this past June, and I understand that kind of change is difficult for you, in the same way that anything new or unfamiliar is always difficult. The Supreme Court of California recognized a new right that had never been legally considered a right before (at least not here). Of course there will be at least some part of you that objects to that kind of change. I realize that, despite what you heard from the protesters on the streets of West Hollywood on Wednesday night, your vote was not intended to be bigoted or hateful, or to treat anyone as a second-class citizen. Change is hard, and we will never get any closer to reaching any kind of agreement or understanding on this issue if we don't recognize that fact.

That said, many of you were tricked into voting yes. You bear much of the responsibility for that, and of course, so does the official "yes on 8" campaign. The campaign consistently misled and lied to voters, in an effort to move the conversation away from the real issue (same-sex marriage) and scare people into voting yes. No church has ever been denied their tax-exempt status for refusing to marry any particular couple. If topics like marriage are taught in California public schools, they have to give parents the right to opt out. Barack Obama stated very clearly that he was against prop 8. Nearly all the official material that came from the yes on 8 campaign was absolute lies or at least implied false statements. It is your responsibility as a voter to be smart enough not to fall for such things, and to call out your own campaign when you see it happening. If you want to use the electoral process to prove that a majority of Californians are on your side, then you need to actually get out there and convince people. As it stands now, all you've proven is that people are very susceptible to emotional advertising.

To the "no on 8" voters:

First of all, next time, get angry before the election. And then channel your anger into volunteering or donating, or at least making sure all your friends will vote our way. And if they say they're not going to, then talk to them about it (see below). In any case, get angry and take action before the election. I'll only say it one more time. Get involved BEFORE the election.

When I was volunteering for the No On 8 campaign over the summer, trying to recruit new volunteers to join us, I would explain briefly how the campaign needed so many thousands of volunteers in order to win. Often, they would then assure me that such a proposition would never pass, not here in California. I don't think anything more needs to be said about those people.

I want to stress again that I understand how frustrated and disappointed everyone is right now. However, slogans like "Stop the hate, no on 8," referring to your opponents as bigots, saying they've treated you as a second class citizen, insulting an entire religious group: None of that helps us very much. Changing the minds of millions of people is not easy, but insulting them is a sure way not to do it. I think we did a great job in this campaign of making sure our messages were always positive and truthful. Next time around, we need to do exactly the same thing, and work even harder to combat the lies that we now know the other side will probably tell.

To people on both sides of this issue:

Even though this fight is over, the conversation that will lead us to the next fight has to continue. So keep talking about this issue, not just with your friends on your side, but with anyone you know who voted the other way. This can be a somewhat painful experience, but we all have to live in this state together, so let's at least try to understand each other a little bit. We will never all agree on everything, and there are people on both sides who will never be swayed. But if we don't start talking to each other soon, trying to understand where the "other side" is coming from, then the "yes" voters will always be "hateful homophobic bigots" and "no" voters will always be "in league with activist judges trying to redefine marriage for us all." This is California. We should be better than that. All of us.

Sidewalk Chalk

I wasn't sure who I was going to vote for in the primary, coming up this Tuesday. I guess it's basically between Obama and Clinton at this point, but they both make such good points in their debates, I really can't decide between them. Luckily, someone at USC decided to make it easy for me. They wrote, in big sidewalk-chalked letters, multiple times, on the corner of Jefferson and McClintock, "Vote for Barack Obama," "Vote Obama Feb. 4th," etc. I guess now I don't have to worry about their voting records in the Senate, their policies on gay rights, immigration, the war in Iraq, etc. Someone has made the decision for me, and informed me of this service, via sidewalk chalk. Thanks guys.

Presidential Debate on Science

Now that I've got this blog set up, one of the first things I want to talk about is "Science Debate 2008," a movement calling for a presidential debate on scientific issues, including global warming, stem cell research, science education, space exploration, and so on. I think that for most people, when they hear the word "science," they think of people in lab coats, speaking incomprehensibly about subjects they will never begin to understand; or of a class they barely passed in high school and learned nothing from; or of a set of strange and unlikely assertions that contradict their own strange and unlikely beliefs. Perhaps if this debate does happen, people will begin to think differently.

In any case, count me as another supporter of this movement.