About 1:50 in:
“What do you think about [Prop 8]?”
“I think it’s a mistake. … I don’t know that I have time to campaign against it, but I know I will be actively speaking out against it.”
Not that I have heard him speak out against it, other than in this video.
Same here, other than maybe Prop 1 and 5 it’s all NO for me.
I like High Speed rail, but I don’t think we can afford this. I am on the fence. I am going to have to read Prop 5 carefully.
Actually, the second bullet in the guide: Appropriates money from the state General Fund to pay off the bonds, if loan payments from participating veterans are insufficient for that purpose.
While taxpayers won’t be the primary funding source, we are the underwriters. And given the current mortgage fiasco, I’m not eager to do that.
Thanks! Looks like he doesn’t want to antagonize the Republican base too much.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I’d be happy if the proposition system were restricted to constitutional amendments and infrastructure bonds. And, if it took more than a simple majority of voters to pass one (two-thirds, three-fourths?), I wouldn’t mind the current low bar to putting one on the ballot.
Hmm, sounds like an idea for a proposition? Think it could pass?
I suppose now is a good time to point out that this is the 27th time the legislature has sent such a measure to the voters since 1922, and that the State has lost no money from the previous 26 bond issues.
I came home this evening to discovery that three of my neighbors – two of whom I know and like – have “Yes on 8” signs on their front lawns. It took me a few minutes to realize just how much that depressed me.
November 4th can’t come quickly enough.
I haven’t seen a single “Yes on 8” sign, even on the lawns with multiple McCain/Palin signs.
Me, I haven’t decided how I’m voting on a number of these propositions (or the local measures, either).
For all of you voting NO on number 4 - how do you reconsile the fact that a minor needs parent permission to get their ears pierced and cannot get a tylanol from the school nurse but parental notification for an abortion is not needed?
Well, I think the whole Tylenol thing is bullshit, too. Medicine should be, first and foremost, about the patient and the doctor- not about a third party. Do you believe that a Jehova’s witness should be able to veto their 17 year old daughters life saving blood transfusion as she’s laying there crying that she doesn’t want to die? I don’t think any reasonable person does.
Also note that parental notification has nothing to do with the stuff you’ve mentioned above. There are no medical procedures, nor any other procedures anywhere, that require parental notification. This isn’t about parental rights at all. It’s about punishing young women for having sex.
Dear God, they’re out there! :eek: I wonder who could possibly support that piece of drivel?
I just picked upa No on 8 sign! You can do the same!
Eh. The people who are planning to vote “yes” aren’t going to suddenly be converted by my putting a sign on my lawn – I’ve never really understood the point of that (or political candidate bumper stickers, for that matter).
When I first heard about Prop 8, I figured there was no way that people in this state would go for something so ridiculous and bigoted, but I fear I was mistaken. Fortunately, at the very least, the same-sex couples I know who have gotten married this year won’t have that taken away from them.
Sadly, a lot of people, apparently. According to the article I linked to, 47% of people responding to the poll were for Prop 8, 42% were opposed, and 10% were undecided.
The polls in September were quite different, with 54% against and 40% for.
I’ve seen a fair number of “Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman” bumper stickers and signs in Chula Vista, in particular.
Not only are there supporters for Prop 8, but it looks like they may well win.
Full Disclosure: I don’t live in CA, but my husband is from there, and will be voting via absentee ballot. Also, we’re planning to move to San Diego in the next year or so, dependent on the economy. Thus, my interest.
I’m not a California voter.
In general, I think the ballot initiative process does terrible damage to the ability of governments to govern and, consequently, to the populace. California, in particular, is something of a joke because of how constrained lawmakers there are. Ergo, I almost always vote No on initiatives.
The exception is bonds – bonds rarely raise taxes, but they do allow the pursuit of valuable public goals. And although I don’t know if this is the case in California, in general they don’t require the legislature to do something, they merely empower it. I think it’s dumb that some states require financing bonds to be voted on directly – setting state budget priorities is the job of the political branches, so why not let them do it? But as long as that restriction remains, as a rule the public is served by the grant of this authority.
–Cliffy
I’m a typically uninformed voter, so most of what I know about these initiatives is based solely on this thread and the commercials I’ve seen. Scary, huh? 
1A: Bond for high-speed train from SoCal to NoCal and Sacramento.
YES YES YES!!! We need alternative transportation, and the LA/SF corridor is perfect for an HST experiment. Besides, trains are cool!
2: Requires enclosed farm animals to have at least minimal movement.
NO, and I’m going to enjoy the Wendy’s Triple Cheeseburger I’ll order after voting against it.
3: Bond for children’s hospitals.
NO. Why children? Why must we only think of the children? I’m sick of hearing about the children. Besides, it’s too much money.
4: Requires minors to notify parents before having abortions.
NO. Parents already meddle waaayy too much in their children’s lives.
5: Increases drug treatment programs, shortens some paroles.
YES.
6: Requires minimal budget expenditure on law enforcement.
NO. Minimum budget requirements are an inherently bad idea, it’s part of the reason we got into this economic mess.
7: Increases renewal energy requirements of electrical power generation.
NO. Badly written law.
8: Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry.
NO, and I cannot fathom why this is even on the ballot. How do they expect to win? This is California, it’s like Saudi Arabia voting to eliminate Islam. Interestingly, nearly all the “Yes on 8” ads are paid for by out-of-state interests. There should be a law against that, it’s not Utah’s business to decide who we choose to fuck.
9: Increases victims’ rights at parole hearings.
NO, only because I don’t know anything about this bill and I can’t be arsed to examine it.
10: Bonds for subsidies and research of fuel-efficient vehicles and technology.
NO, because we’re spending too much money already.
11: Creates non-legislative redistricting commission.
YES, but I don’t see the point. Gerrymandering is inherent to politics, whether we like it or not.
12: Bond for home and farm loans for veterans.
NO. Veterans are cool, but why farms? Screw the farmers.
Yes on **1A **(trains) and **11 **(redistricting). Maybe on **2 **(moo) and no on everything else. Like most others, my default position is NO, especially if it involves lots of money and especially, especially if they try and make it sound like something it’s not. The YES vote on 1A is purely self-interest even though I don’t think its the best use of state funds at the moment. I travel to the central valley often and would like a direct train that doesn’t make you take a bus from LA to Bakersfield.
Prop 8 looks pretty popular here in Orange County. There are lots of people by the side of the roads dancing and waving “YES on 8” signs. Of course they never mention anything about same-sex marriage on their signs. All they say are things like:
Prop 8 = Less Government
Prop 8 = Free Speech
and other B.S. I fear it will pass.
I don’t expect to change any minds. I just want to show my support, especially in light of all the Yes on 8 signs that have gone up.
Huh? What does one have to do with the other?
I don’t have to reconcile anything. We turned this down in 2005 and 2006 and they’re bringing it up again already? Screw that. I wouldn’t mind a law that limited initiatives covering the same thing to be limited to once every 5 years. (5 at the least)
I haven’t read the other responses yet and will give my opinions first. My default position on all propositions is NO and have to be compelled to change that by a very good argument.
1A: NO. I hate bond issues and think that they’re fiscally a terrible idea. $20 billion over 20 years. No way. Not worth it.
2: NO. Too expensive and I’m not sure that this is really a problem.
3: NO. Another bond issue. Another $2 billion.
4: NO. I am really on the fence on this one but ultimately decided on NO. I don’t have kids of my own which may color things for me. Ultimately, the NO arguments in the pamphlet were over the top and offensive.
5: YES. This is the correct way to go for non-violent victimless crimes. Drug users who aren’t thieves and violent do not belong in prison. I have my doubts about whether or not the treatment programs will actually do any good but they won’t be worse than prison.
6: NO. The legislature should determine how money is to be allocated and not be hamstrung by laws like this. Situations can change from year to year and the legislature needs flexibility.
7: NO. I am a huge supporter of alternative energy but this is poorly thought out and could be very expensive. I would prefer tax credits to utilities who meet certain goals as opposed to mandating standards which could well be impossible to meet.
8: NO. As in no fucking way. This is a hateful, offensive piece of legislation. It embarrassing that it even got this far.
9: YES. This is a reasonable way to deal with violent or habitual criminals.
10: NO. Again with the bond issues. $10 billion more.
11: YES. I love this. Let regular people determine the districts. The politicians hate this. I’d even considering applying for the committee.
12: NO. Bond issue. $2 billion. Gah. It’s pretty poorly timed too. Let’s give home loans to people who might not otherwise afford them. That’s so 2007.
Oh, there are Yes on 8 signs around my neck of the woods. That seems to be much more of a priority for some folks than, oh, say, war, the economy, pollution, or…you get the idea.
I say No on it. Why? Marriage is not destroyed by allowing same sex couples to MARRY. The fearmongering ads about “teaching it to the kids in schools!!!” are transparently idiotic and inaccurate. I say, Let 'em be just as miserable as the hetero couples if they want.