A Gay Case for Reform
Log Cabin California Director Jeff Bissiri writes in this month’s IN Los Angeles Magazine about why gays and lesbiabns should consider voting for reform on Tuesday, November 8.
On November 8, Californians will be asked two simple questions: Are we satisfied with the way our State Government is functioning, and are we willing to take the necessary steps to clean it up? For those who believe we can do better, the ballot includes a series of measures that improve the way our State does business.
Because Governor Schwarzenegger supports them, you might be inclined to vote against the measures as a way of “paying him back” for his veto of the marriage equality bill. While there is justifiable disappointment at the Governor for his veto, his overall record, including a 100% rating by Equality California for his first year in office, places him as one of the most pro-gay governors in America. No matter how you feel about the Governor, your vote on these initiatives should be based on their merits. If you ask yourself how these proposals will affect LGBT Californians you’ll vote yes on Propositions 74, 75, 76 and 77.
Proposition 74 seeks to improve education in California by extending from two to five years the time it takes before a teacher can achieve tenure. Tenure effectively makes it impossible for a teacher to be fired. We’re grateful for the tens of thousands of excellent teachers who are educating our children; however two years just isn’t long enough to determine whether a teacher deserves a job that’s guaranteed for life. This initiative will improve our school system by making sure that only deserving teachers get a lifetime job. If this initiative is approved, it will not affect current law which gives LGBT teachers strong protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation regardless of tenure. The LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Orange County Register, all support this measure.
Proposition 75 requires public employee unions to get a member’s consent before taking money from their paychecks for political purposes. Last year, public employee unions contributed to legislators who opposed marriage equality. Without Proposition 75, LGBT public employees will have money taken directly from their paychecks and put into the political coffers of those who could deny them their equal rights. Those who disagree with their unions political decisions shouldn’t have their money taken without approval.
Members of the LGBT community are taxpayers too. Public employee unions, using taxpayer dollars, have pumped so much money into political campaigns that they effectively control both sides of the negotiating table. The other side of that table is not big business but our elected representatives and we the taxpayers. The conflict of interest is clear. The LA Times, Orange County Register, and San Diego Union Tribune support this measure.
Proposition 76 ties State government spending to the revenues Sacramento brings in. In our personal lives we must live within our means or face the consequences. But in Sacramento, the response to this same urge to spend more money than comes in has been to deny the problem exists—and tens of billions of dollars in debt have been racked up as a consequence. The upheaval caused by these annual budget crises has far reaching effects.
Under the current state budget system, any program that is supported by the general fund is vulnerable to spending freezes or cuts, including many programs that benefit the LGBT community. For example, since 2000, our community has fought for full funding of AIDS Drug Assistance Programs. With more predictable spending and revenues for the State, people with HIV/AIDS will not be asked to sacrifice to pay for the legislature’s spendthrift ways. The San Jose Mercury News, Orange County Register, and San Diego Union Tribune, support this measure.
Proposition 77 takes the power to draw legislative boundaries away from the Legislature and puts it in the hands of a panel of retired judges selected by both parties and gives them specific criteria to draw the lines. The current system is rigged to protect incumbents. Since the politicians in Sacramento redrew congressional and state legislative districts before the 2002 elections, not one incumbent has lost. Democracy doesn’t work if incumbents never have to worry about losing. It also creates a system where the sensible center is kept out of public office because our elected representatives are chosen, not in general elections but, in closed partisan primaries.
Opinion surveys show a growing number of registered Republicans in California support marriage equality and a clear majority of GOP voters support domestic partnership rights. These Republicans are not represented in the legislature because gerrymandered districts and closed primaries silence their voices. It’s time to establish clear rules that will be implemented by a fair-minded panel who will consider the best interests of the voters instead of the best interests of the politicians. The LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee and San Jose Mercury News, support this measure.
Together, these four proposals offer us a chance to reform state government. All Californians, but particularly LGBT Californians, should support these common sense reforms.
I couldn’t have said so better myself!
[…] Even if it is with a grain of salt, if you’re a Gay living in California, you should read this piece before going to the polls next Tuesday. […]
Pingback by Boi From Troy » The Gay Case for Reform in California — November 2, 2005 @ 11:17 am
Note to those who helped raise the funds to send Jeff to Sacramento:
Your money was well spent!!
Let’s make sure the funding stream doesn’t dry up and Jeff is on tap to continue to represent our common interests.
Bruce
Comment by Bruce Albert — November 2, 2005 @ 3:29 pm
With regards to 74:
A tenured teacher does not have a guaranteed job for life. The process required for removing bad teachers is already in place. It is up to the principal to take those steps to improve the quality of his/her teaching staff. Unfortunately, due to distractions such as countering the effects of vandalism, truancy, teacher shortage, and non-education-related-yet-nonetheless-mandated-legal hoops imposed by state and fed, not all principals have the opportunity to do so properly.
And, to be frank, most bad teachers don’t start off bad. They become bad as they burn out later on in their careers. Extending the probationary period by three more years in the beginning would hardly fix that.
All 74 does is reinforce the negative connotations that go with the job that teachers are already working under.
Comment by David — November 3, 2005 @ 6:29 am
“Carnival of Arnold” — Inaugural Edition
Our goal and stated purpose for the “Carnival of Arnold” is to highlight the work of other bloggers as pertaining to the topic of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and, exclusively for this edition, next Tuesday’s election.
We’ve got…
Trackback by California Conservative — November 6, 2005 @ 5:59 pm
[…] The Gay Case for Reform by Log Cabin Republicans Excerpt: Log Cabin California Director Jeff Bissiri writes in this month’s IN Los Angeles Magazine about why gays and lesbiabns should consider voting for reform on Tuesday, November 8. […]
Pingback by FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Arnold Schwarzenegger Watch: The Carnival of Arnold — November 6, 2005 @ 6:48 pm