Posted by: Lisa Pampuch | October 28, 2008

Calling all undecided voters

“Indecision may or may not be my problem.” ~ Jimmy Buffett

This column is addressed to any voters who remain undecided just seven days ahead of the general election.

I’m passionate not only about the presidential election, which is getting lots of attention, but also about several state and local measures that appear on the general election ballot. If you’re undecided about any of these, I hope you’ll consider my recommendations:

• No on Prop 8 – Like interracial marriage before it, same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue. Reject the lies and hate spewed by many Prop 8 proponents. Instead, support all families by voting no on Prop 8.

• Yes on Prop 11 – Redistricting reform is the key first step to ending budgetary gridlock in Sacramento. Legislators cannot put aside their own self-interest in drawing districts. Take that job away from them by voting yes on Prop 11.

• Yes on Measure A – A seismically sound hospital is a necessity in earthquake country. Fund it by voting yes on Measure A.

• No on Measures B, C and D – Extending BART to San Jose is a boondoggle that will harm public transportation in South County. Refuse to fund it by voting no on Measure B. Measure C is a vote of confidence that VTA does not deserve, and Measure D reduces VTA’s accountability to the public. Vote no on Measures B, C and D.

In Morgan Hill, Measure H has not received the attention that it deserves. It’s a smart planning amendment to the city’s residential development control systems that would move 500 housing allotments to the city’s downtown.

This is smart planning because it will place housing units near public transportation – specifically, Morgan Hill’s Caltrain station. It will also increase the number of people living downtown, a key step toward revitalizing Morgan Hill’s struggling city center. More people downtown means that more businesses will be interested in investing there, and that those businesses will have more customers.

Please join me in voting yes on Measure H.

I don’t live in Gilroy, so I cannot vote on these issues, but if I could, here’s how I’d cast my ballot:

• No on Measure E – If approved, this self-serving and misguided measure will extend terms for some current city council members and change city council elections from odd years — where they get lots of attention — to even years — where they’ll get buried by other races. Vote no on Measure E.

• Yes on Measure F – Libraries are the best bargain in government, and Gilroy’s library is much too small for this growing community. Vote to construct a new library building by voting yes on Measure F.

• Yes on Measure P – Gilroy needs a second high school. Measure P is the way to pay for it. It replaces a higher rate bond measure that sunsets in 2011 with a lower rate bond measure. Vote yes on Measure P.

Finally, a few words about the presidential race: If you’re still undecided between Barack Obama and John McCain, let me tell you why I’m voting for Barack Obama.

Despite being the target of one of the longest primary campaigns and ugliest general election campaigns in history, Obama has stuck to his principles and kept his cool. He has led an extraordinarily disciplined, inspiring and innovative campaign for more than two years. He’ll be a steady leader in difficult times. Obama’s judgments on foreign policy, national security and diplomacy have been validated by history.

Obama’s tax proposals will raise income taxes only for voters making more than $250,000 a year; those making less will see no change or will see a reduction in their taxes.

One of Obama’s economic advisors is billionaire Warren Buffett, who has blasted tax policies like those endorsed by John McCain and George Bush that give tax breaks to the wealthy. Speaking at a political fundraiser last year, Buffett said, “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest one percent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent.”

Obama has a sensible health-care reform plan that’s built around the employer-based health insurance system currently in place. It is not, as many in the right-wing echo chamber falsely claim, “government-run health care.” McCain’s plan to tax employer-paid heath-care benefits for the first time in history would destroy that system.

Obama favors common-sense regulation of our nation’s financial markets; McCain has fought for 26 years to deregulate them to the point that the economy is now on the brink of disaster.

Obama will choose sensible justices for the United States Supreme Court, not dangerous ideologues like McCain has promised to appoint.

Do you like where George Bush’s economic and foreign policies have brought us? I don’t. Our beloved nation is in desperate need of a new direction, the direction in which Obama will lead us.

“I will vote my hopes and not my fears.” ~ Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl



  1. While there are strong similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, believing that gay unions are equal to heterosexual unions and that opposition to gay marriage is equal to the discrimination of race is a misconception.

    If the state legalizes gay marriage, then suddenly marriage changes from a protected belief of a small minority, to the false impression that the state (which is an extension of the people) believes that it is morally acceptable to practice homosexuality.

    As individuals, law abiding homosexuals should be entitled to every inalienable right held by any heterosexual; but as couples, gay relationships no longer hold an equal stance to the synergy of a heterosexual relationship. The answer lies in procreation—the primary responsibility of a family.

    The gay agenda wants to redefine marriage as simply commitment, honesty, affection, and warmth between two loving individuals. If so then it simply becomes an equal protection issue and the gay couple argues they are being discriminated against for a relationship they claim holds equal commitment and value to the heterosexual relationship. This argument breaks down because it ignores posterity and procreation. Children are what differentiate the marriage contract from all other consensual adult arrangements. The state has always had a keen interest in the bearing and rearing of children. Indeed that is why the state got in the business of registering and recognizing marriage in the first place.

    The point, both legally and historically, the gay family can ONLY exist as a product of government policy and modern science, and a dependence on the natural family. It is very clear that there is no natural procreative ability between gay partners. The procreative ability between heterosexual couples is, by contrast, perfectly natural, and dates back to the start of recorded history. The natural family would continue whether the government or science became involved or not. Thus, we see that a homosexual relationship is not naturally equal to a heterosexual relationship.

    The Declaration of Independence proclaims that we are endowed with unalienable rights, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. John Locke, called this “natural law”. Natural law is not a creation or product of the state, but was to be protected by the state as these are the natural rights of all men inseparably connected to being human. Gays may argue that they are in the pursuit of liberty and happiness, yet there is no logical means by which they are naturally in the pursuit of life. Indeed we may argue that the gay movement, by its very nature, is a movement in pursuit of death, its own extinction, for without the intervention of the state and modern science, homosexuality results in the termination of posterity. Thus, from the perspective of both science and state we can see that the union of man and women, with their resulting children compared to the gay union are polar opposites both in origin and fruit.

    What about couples who are infertile? Many married heterosexuals choose not to have children, and others cannot because of medical problems or physical handicaps. But gays fought furiously to convince the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their books as a “disorder”, or medical problem. The majority of the United States will now agree that homosexuality is not a medical problem or disorder. Even in perfect medical condition, a gay couple cannot procreate without the help of a third party. Therefore homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are inherently, and naturally, unequal. Gays should NOT shunned because of their beliefs and tendencies. Nor does this fact infringe on their God given rights. The argument is that the two relationships are very different from one another and for that reason they should be defined differently.

    More here

  2. First, the analogy between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage is completely valid. This video makes that point much more eloquently than I can:

    Your argument that same-sex marriage would give the “false impression” that the state believes that homosexuality is morally acceptable is another way of saying that you’re seeking the state’s endorsement of your discriminatory thinking. See this post:

    Who says that it’s a “false impression” to say that homosexuality is morally acceptable? I say it is morally acceptable; you say it isn’t. Calling homosexuality immoral is religious-based opinion. The state should have no position on the morality of homosexuality, just as it should have no position on whether Jesus is the Messiah or the product of virgin birth or any other religious assertion.

    Finally, because procreation is not a requirement for opposite-sex marriage, it is a red herring in this argument. Unless and until you’re willing to require that all opposite-sex couples reproduce, and unless and until you’re willing to deny marriage licenses to those who cannot or will not reproduce, and unless and until you’re willing to annul the marriages of those who fail to reproduce, you’re a hypocrite.

    No on Prop 8.

  3. […] • “Extending BART to San Jose is a boondoggle that will harm public transportation in South County.” (October 2008) […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: