Posted on 08/28/2002 11:12:47 PM PDT by voa-davidk
Let's just hope the Republicans (still upper case for now) in the california legislature can hold out in this budget battle. Just once I would like to see a pubbie do what's right for no other reason than because it's right.
It is called integrity - a commodity that has been lacking in GOP politics since the Impeachment Non-Trial. Watch this thread take on new proportions of how "we" have to do whatever it takes to get elected and then just wait and see us display integrity. I'll set myself up once again for a bit of flaming. The GOP is really getting closer and closer to the platform of ... "Vote for us because ... well ... were not Democrats, afterall!"
Bill Simon never had a chance in the first place in California and his embracing the Queer Nation folks will only serve to cement his loss in November.
I posted this idea a few days ago.
Looks like another sellout.
There was only one solution I could come up with that would work. I'll share it again later.
Consider this, then:
"REFORM PARTY CHAIRMAN ENDORSES A.I.P. CANDIDATES IN CALIFORNIA
Ron Gulke, American Independent Party (CONSERVATIVE) nominee for Governor of California, received a major boost for his candidacy, last weekend, when he was endorsed by Ezola Foster, State Chairman of California's Reform Party. Mrs. Foster was the reform party's Vice-Presidential nominee in 2000, running with Pat Buchanan. Mrs. Foster praised Gulke's stand on moral and family value issues, including his support of the pro-life cause, and his stand for Second Amendment rights. The Reform Party does not have candidates in five of the seven partisan statewide races in California this year, while the American Independent Party has a full ticket. Mrs. Foster's endorsement of A.I.P. candidates included Diane Templin for Attorney General, Nathan Johnson for Treasurer, Ernest Vance for Controller, and Steve Klein for Insurance Commissioner."
BILL SIMON'S ANSWERS TO THE LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS OF CALIFORNIA QUESTIONNAIRE
Answers Submitted August 9, 2002
1. Governor Jerry Brown, by executive order, prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in state employment. Every governor since has left this executive order in place. Will you?
Yes, I would. I believe that the state of California should be a progressive employer and provide protection for workers in case of discrimination. The executive order has worked well.
2. Will your campaign and administration hire gays and lesbians in all three branches of California government, and appoint qualified gays and lesbians to judicial positions, including senior positions?
I am committed to appointing the best people serve in positions high and low in my administration. I do not believe that inquiry into a person's sexual orientation is proper in the process of choosing staff. There are a number of gay and lesbian people in my business, and campaign. My record of including all people is very clear, and it would certainly continue in the Governor's office.
3. Would you support the continued recognition and involvement of gay Republicans in state party activities?
I support the continued recognition and involvement of gay Republicans in state party activities.
4. Would you back a state party charter for the Log Cabin Republican Party of California?
I would back a state party charter for the Log Cabin of California.
5. Log Cabin Republicans of California have been involved in the State Republican party for 25 years. What is your opinion about the good this organization has done in the State Party?
I believe that the Log Cabin Republicans have provided a voice for members of our party who find that the Democratic party does not represent them on a whole range of issues, whether they be the economy, education, personal liberty, or the environment. I am pleased that the Log Cabin Republicans have made substantial contributions to our party.
6. Although already permitted by sate law, are you prepared to endorse the right of gays and lesbians to visit their ill partners in the hospital?
I fully support hospital visitation, and other rights, for domestic partners. I am opposed to workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.
7. As governor, would you or your appointees to the UC Regents seek to repeal or leave in place the domestic partner employment benefits provided by the UC Regents?
I would leave them in place. The Regents of the University of California have concluded that offering this benefit assists the University in attracting the quality staff it is seeking.
8. Currently the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) offers health benefits, including medical, dental and vision insurance, to the domestic partners of eligible state employees. As governor, would you or your appointees to the governing board of PERS leave in place the domestic partner benefits currently offered by the provided through PERS?
Yes, I would. The California Public Employees Retirement System have concluded that offering this benefit is consistent with our history as a progressive employer and provides protection for workers in case of discrimination.
9. What is your position on AIDS funding in an era of severe budget cuts?
I believe that public health is an important function of government. AIDs funding is an important component of that effort. My own personal contributions to AIDs research and prevention indicate my support for funding.
10. Do you support existing state law, as passes by the voters, and the recent State Supreme Court ruling upholding this law, allowing the doctor-prescribed use of marijuana for medical purposes?
I supported the medical marijuana initiative, Proposition 215, when it was on the ballot in November 1996. I know that the federal government is opposed to the measure. As Governor, I would seek to find common ground with the federal government so that we can avoid politicizing this issue and instead rely on medical evidence in implementing the will of the people of California.
11. Currently before the State legislature is AB 1785, which would allow individuals to purchase needles and syringes from a pharmacy without a doctor's prescription. A significant portion of the medical community feel that this is a constructive response to controlling the transference of the HIV virus by the sharing of needles among addicts. What are your views on this legislation?
SB1785 repeals the requirement for a prescription to purchase hypodermic needles or syringes for human use if the purchaser is 18 or older in controlled circumstances. It has passed the State Senate and now is under consideration by the Assembly. It has been amended since its Senate passage, but is still opposed by the California Narcotics Officers Association, California Police Chiefs Association, and the California Peace Officers Association. I understand that this legislation would complement the 1999 legislation that which allows a local jurisdiction to distribute needles or syringes in a syringe exchange program upon declaring a local emergency exists due to a local public health crisis. I know that 44 states currently allow their residents to purchase syringes and needles without a prescription. I am hopeful that the author can resolve the issues with law enforcement.
12. Do you support or oppose company policies that offer workplace domestic partnership benefit programs?
Companies that decide to offer workplace domestic partnership benefit programs are exercising the freedom that employers have in our country to offer incentives to their employees so that the ability of the employer to attract a workforce that maximizes the employer's competitiveness is realized. In today's competitive world, I believe that all employers are well advised to do all that they can to attract employees who can contribute to the goals of the company, without regard to personal attributes or characteristics that are irrelevant to those goals.
13. Does your own company have a domestic partnership benefit program in place? If not, what has you company done to proactively offer you employees domestic partnership benefits?
My company presently does not offer a domestic partnership benefit program simply because there has not been a request for such. I believe our human resources policies are very responsive to the needs of our employees and we would be responsive in this area as well.
14. Do you support existing law on domestic partnerships?
I believe that any two people who fit the qualifications of the law should be able to have their relationship recognized by the state. However, I do not believe that sexual orientation should be a factor in the recognition by the state of such relationships. I would not support undoing any of the rights that currently are available under the law, but I believe those rights should be extended to others as well. In addition, I would be open about adding rights and responsibilities as would be appropriate and justified.
15. Currently before the State Legislature is AB 1080, which if enacted, would prohibit state agencies from entering into contracts with vendors who do not offer benefits to domestic partner employees. In your opinion, is this an appropriate exercise of state government?
There have several issues raised with regard to the bill as it is currently written, including how the state would verify that a bidder did in fact offer the same benefits to employees with registered domestic partners as it did to employees with spouses, the increased potential for litigation if this legislation did result in bids being disqualified, and the increase in contract costs to the state. I support portable health policies so individuals can choose their own coverage.
16. Would you seek to repeal or modify legislation signed by Governor Davis facilitating adoptions by same sex couples?
No, I would not seek to repeal this legislation.
17. Currently before the State Legislature is AB 2651, which establishes training guidelines for foster parents of gay and lesbian youth. In your opinion, is this an appropriate exercise of state government?
While this bill has been amended four times as it has proceeded through the legislative process, it has continued to address the same subject since its introduction. The bill makes explicit the current rights of children and providers in the foster care system relating to sexual orientation and religion. This appears to be a supportable concept; however, I would have to see the final language to be sure that the bill accomplished its goals and did so in a manner that enhanced the foster care system.
18. What is your philosophy about same-sex marriages?
Many people are cynical about those who seek public office, believing that they will say anything to get elected. It is my desire to help restore civility and honesty in the discussion of public policy. I will not say one thing in one situation and another in a different situation just to further my chances to get elected. In the primary campaign I stated that, "marriage is an institution that should remain between one man and one woman." I stand by that statement. However, I do believe that human beings enter into relationships with other human beings and that some of those relationships are deserving of recognition, not as the equivalent to marriage, or as a substitute for marriage, but in order to allow two individuals who have established a strong caring relationship to more fully function within that relationship.
19. Would your administration issue Gay Pride Day proclamations as past administrations have done?
Yes, in June 2003 I will sign a proclamation declaring Gay Pride Day.
20. Please examine your reasons for opposing AB 25?
I would not seek to repeal AB 25. I believe sexual orientation should be removed from the qualification under these provisions so that the benefits could accrue to other couples in a close relationship. As such, I am open to extending further benefits as appropriate and justified.
21. In the past you have said, "the state should not be in the business of trying to classify people or confer rights based on sexual orientation." What does that mean operationally? Would you seek to indo any, or all, current laws that distinguish sexual orientation (for example in employment, housing, health, domestic partnerships, etc.)?
A Simon Administration would strongly enforce laws that make it illegal to discriminate against people in employment, housing and health. I believe that the existing domestic partnership law is explicitly based on sexual orientation. I would prefer that it was not. As a general rule, I think the government should stay out of the business of classifying people based on their sexual orientation. It is a slippery slope that could be problematic in the future. However, I am supportive of the concept of a domestic partnership law, and I would not seek to repeal the current law.
22. SCA 9 is a proposed state constitutional amendment that, along with the current exemption for marriage and certain family members, would exempt people who live together (cohabitants) from higher taxes due to reappraisal of property if their partner has died or has been diagnosed with a terminal disease. Do you join Senators Ross Johnson, Tom McClintock, Bruce McPherson, and Ray Haynes in supporting this amendment?
This Constitutional Amendment would exclude transfers of personal residences from the current definition of purchase or change in ownership when the transfers occur between co-owners and cohabitants who have resided in the home for at least five years prior to the transfer and when the transfer is made because one party dies or is diagnosed with a terminal disease. This appears to be a supportable concept; however, I would have to see the final language to be sure that the measure accomplished its goals.
23. SB 1945 extends the period to file a complaint with FEHA from one year to three years after any hate crime is alleged to have been committer. Do you support such legislation?
This bill has been amended three times. In its current form it extends the one-year deadline for filing a verified complaint with State Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleging violations of the Ralph Civil Rights Act, to a period of time, not to exceed one year form the date the person aggrieved by an alleged violation, becomes aware of the identity of a person liable for the alleged violation, but in no case exceeding three years from the date of the alleged violation. This appears to be a supportable concept; however, I would have to see the final language to be sure that the bill appropriately accomplished its goals.
24. The following is legislation before the state Legislature that establishes legal equality for partners in civil unions/domestic partnerships. Which could you support and why? Which could you not support and why?
AB 2216: Inheritance of jointly owned property in cases where no will
exists:
At one time, this provision was included in AB 25; however, it was deleted at the request of the Governor. I do not have a position at this time.
AB 2777: Allowing county governments to use general county funds to pay spousal-equivalent benefits to a survivor of a county employee who dies:
This bill makes domestic partners of county employees in specified categories eligible for certain death benefits and survivor benefits subject to approval by the board of supervisors of the county. It only applies to Santa Barbara, Los Angeles and Marin Counties, all of which provide retirement benefits under the County Employees' Retirement Law of 1937. I support empowering local government to make their own decisions.
SB 1661: Mandating that private employers provide family disability insurance, either through private insurance or payment to the State Disability fund:
This is a highly controversial measure that creates, within the State Disability Insurance program, a family temporary disability insurance program to provide up to 12 weeks of wage replacement benefits to workers who take time off work to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, domestic partner, or to bond with a new child.
I do not have a position at this time.
(not YOU, but rather the respondent to the homosexual lobby questionnaire).
He has always claimed that family values are a matter of individual conscience. See his statements on abortion for details.
This is not the right election in which to fight the family values fight. This is the election to realize that we have a hopeless incompetent in the governor's chair, and we have to get him defeated.
Bill Simon might not be your dream candidate, but remember that California is a socially liberal state, and he has a much better chance at being elected if he shows that he's willing to go along with the majority - another political principle.
I'm sure that in his heart he believes in family values - he started PaxTV, after all - but he also thinks that they should be up to the individual, not the coercive state.
Personally, I agree with him on this. But even if you don't, remember that if he's not elected, Gray Davis will be. And Gray Davis has, among other things, signed pro-abortion legislation I'm sure Simon would not have touched.
D
But as a voter, got pretty tired of being jacked around and treated like a sap, though.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Tanks but no tanks. We'll wait for them to remove the whole Log Cabin first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.