NO - It won't be completed until 2030 and we already have airplanes that can get us from LA to San Francisco in less than 3 hours. In my opinion not worth the taxes.
Not Sure - I'm for animals having larger cages but we import our food from all over the world and that don't have the same regulations. I think we might be hurting our own CA farming economy by putting more restrictions on our farmers which will cause higher prices and less demand.
Not Sure - I think it is a worthwhile investment (children) but I'm not sure about the $64 million a year for 30 years. I wish our government could run on a postive cash flow instead of allows going into debt for programs.
Yes - If parents have to give consent to go on a field trip; they should be notified prior to their daughter getting an abortion. I hate the commercials that make people feel bad for the abused girls that can't tell their parents. I hate that they are talking about the smallest minority (pregnant abused girl) rather than the norm; that most girls are not abused by their family.
NO - I don't want to pay more for my utilities. If going to renewable energy was best business practice the companies would already do it. I think using renewable resources is an excellent goal but when the government mandates and subsides the movement they cause more damage than good. You can research the effects ethanol fuel has had on the farmers and why wheat and corn cost a lot more.
YES - already posted my views, an update listed below.
NO - I don't believe in subsidizing ideas/programs that won't be self-sufficient. If you want to buy a hybrid do it because you feel it is the best car for you not because the government will give you additional money.
Yes - Changes authority for establishing Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries from elected representatives to 14 member commission. I think elected officials are about themselves and don't create fair and impartial boundary lines.
The truth about Prop 8 - Protect Marriage
Claim One: Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools.
Truth: A few weeks ago children in a 1st grade class attended their teacher’s gay wedding in San Francisco on a school-organized field trip. The principal called it a “teachable moment.” That sure sounds like same-sex marriage instruction in schools.
This week kindergartners at Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, CA, were asked to sign pledge cards saying they would not use anti-LGBT language. Parents who felt their children were far too young for such a discussion, most at an average age of 5 who are just learning the basics of reading and writing, were not permitted to opt-out, but instead had to keep their children home from school.
As we have clearly demonstrated, California Education Code Section 51933 states schools “shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.” According to the California Department of Education website, 96% of schools teach this curriculum. And under the Supreme Court’s ruling, current California law means teaching about marriage includes instruction on gay marriage. Thus, gay marriage is already part of the curriculum. Perhaps because of these simple facts, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell refuses to debate..
Claim Two: Proposition 8 would have no effect on a church’s tax-exempt status.
Truth: The No on 8 campaign used a classic lawyer trick, rolled out a group of lawyers yesterday to falsely state our concern about the impact of same sex marriage on religious freedoms, and then saying our concerns are false. For the record, the Yes on 8 campaign has never said that churches, acting as churches, would be forced to perform gay marriages. However, it is clear that where churches interact with the public square, in providing social services or even conducting business, their tax exempt status is at risk.
In one well publicized case, Catholic Charities in Boston ran adoption facilities that managed 700 cases since 1987, most involving children with special needs. Catholic Charities placed such children into parents in traditional marriages, according to their faith. After gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, the state told Catholic Charities it had to place children with gay marriage couples as well. Faced with such a decision, Catholic Charities reluctantly decided to stop providing adoption services.
Another religious non-profit, Ocean Grove Campground in New Jersey, lost a portion of its tax-exempt status on a rental pavilion because it refused to rent the facility to a lesbian couple for a civil commitment ceremony.
Claim Three: Proposition 8 discriminates against gays and lesbians.
Truth: Under California’s current domestic partnership law, (Family Code Section 297), gay couples are awarded the same legal rights and privileges as married couples. California has the strongest civil union/domestic partnership law in the nation, and Proposition 8 does not take away any of those rights.
Claim Four: If Proposition 8 passes there will be a brain drain to gay-friendly Massachusetts.
Truth: Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for five years and California still remains the epicenter of technology, biomed and other science-based industries. If a “gay brain-drain” was going to happen, shouldn’t it have started 5 years ago?
“The claims being disseminated by the No on 8 campaign are preposterous,” said White, “and have no basis in fact. We realize the No on 8 has a new team that has to justify their hiring, but cheap campaign stunts and false claims do not serve the public.”