Why I am voting NO on Propositions 21 & 22

By Rebecca Dawn Kaplan

An overview of the reasons to oppose the "Juvenile Crime" initiative and the anti-gay "Knight" initiative.

By Rebecca Kaplan rebeccak@igc.org http://www.rebecca-at-large.org 510-465-5193

(Permission is granted to distribute this document, as long as full attribution is given and reference information is intact)

In March 2000, Californians will face a wide array of propositions on the ballot. Two of these propositions are a continuation of the politics of hate and divisiveness that have been used in the previous administration. Everyone who believes in tolerance, equality, and justice should oppose Propositions 21 and 22. (The official descriptions of these ballot initiatives are found at the end of this article).

Proposition 21 is Pete Wilson's Juvenile Crime initiative. It would greatly increase the penalties for a wide range of crimes committed by minors. The proposition would require that numerous children be tried as adults, and would imprison them in adult prisons. It would make the criminal records of juveniles more publicly available, and would provide increased penalties for "gang-related" activities, including allowing the death penalty to be inflicted on children. It would require hundreds of millions of dollars in increased prison expenditures, and would fundamentally alter our approach to juvenile crime away from rehabilitation, into a purely punitive model. Locking up 14 year olds with adult criminals not only puts the children at great risk of sexual assault and other forms of brutality, it also is likely to teach them to be more criminal, and more violent, in the future. Governor Wilson and his supporters cut education spending drastically # creating a situation in which California began to spend more money on prisons than on schools. What kind of message are we sending to young people, when we refuse to provide a decent education, but are willing to spend millions of dollars to imprison them? This type of law will disproportionately impact communities of color, further worsening race relations, and tearing apart families by imprisoning more people. The word "gang" is often a code word for young Latino and African-American men, who often are harassed for hanging out together, even when no crime is being committed. In affluent communities, groups of teenagers usually hang out in someone's house, sitting in the recreation room playing video games, or using someone's pool table. In lower income communities, young people often have no private place to socialize. After-school programs, youth centers, and public parks are underfunded and nonexistent in many communities. These young people may be unfairly labeled a "gang" simply because they are socializing together on a sidewalk, for lack of anywhere else to go. Even when young people do commit crimes, we should not give up hope of educating and rehabilitating them. Many people did foolish or illegal things in their youth, but people like George "W" Bush get to move on, and continue their education despite their mistakes # everyone deserves the same opportunity. Finally, executing children has been banned by international treaties, and condemned by virtually every human rights organization in the world, including Amnesty International. (For more on this, see http://www.amnesty-usa.org/rightsforall/juvenile/ ). By executing 14 year-olds, the US is violating international agreements, and developing a reputation as a "rogue" brutal nation. We can do better than this. We can promote justice, and compassion, and fairness. We can vote NO on Prop. 21.

Proposition 22 # "Knight Initiative" # Limit on Marriage.

The "Knight Initiative" is deceptively simple # it states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This anti-gay effort would set up one class of Californians as second-class citizens, officially declaring that same-sex relationships are devalued by the State. Of course, same-sex marriage is already illegal in California, so the initiative is not really about marriage. The Knight Initiative seeks to single out gay people for special condemnation, creating a symbolic message that some people are less valued than others. This initiative could also threaten domestic partner laws and policies, for both same-sex and mixed-sex couples, by stating that "only marriage" is recognized. This could potentially threaten "palimony" cases, and other rules recognizing rights outside of marriage. It could also be used by anyone who wishes to discriminate against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, or anyone who wishes to discriminate against unmarried mixed-sex couples. Many people might be denied housing or employment, because the landlord or employer disapproves of their sexual orientation, or their unmarried status. That landlord or employer could then try to claim that they are justified in discriminating, because California has officially declared that married, male-female couples are legally superior to other people. This initiative is also about religious freedom. Anyone who believes in freedom of religion should OPPOSE the Knight Initiative. The Knight Initiative seeks to impose some people's religious views on everyone. This is akin to telling some people to practice someone else's religion, rather than their own. This is unfair, and inappropriate in a multicultural society. There are some religions that do not support same-sex unions, just as numerous religions do not support marriage between people of different faiths. Each religious group should be free to practice its own beliefs, as long as they are not imposed on others. If a particular priest or minister or rabbi or any other religious official does not believe in officiating over marriages of interdenominational couples, then we should not force them to do so. Similarly, we should not force them to perform same-sex unions. But, when crafting civil law, for a State government, religious views should not be imposed on the public. It would be wrong, and it would be a violation of religious freedom, if there were to be a State law saying, "only marriages between people of the same religion are recognized in California." People who believe that interfaith marriages are wrong are entitled to their beliefs, but are not entitled to require that everyone else live by those beliefs. Similarly, people who disapprove of same-sex unions should not be able to impose those views on everyone in California. Finally, we should consider separating the symbolic, romantic and religious aspects of the marriage ceremony from the legal, financial, and government involvement. Many people are fighting over marriage rights because marriage is now connected to health benefits and other economic issues. Some people are striving for marriage rights because they want to be able to have health insurance benefits through their partner's employer. Some people are opposing same-sex partnership recognition, because they do not want to have to pay for health (and other benefits) for more people. We could make this all much easier if we did not link benefits with romantic partnership at all. EVERYONE should be guaranteed the right to decent healthcare, no matter what their sexual orientation or marital status or employment situation. And EVERYONE should be allowed to be visited in the hospital by whichever people they are closest to, regardless of marriage. Vote NO on "Knight" # it is divisive and inappropriate. For more information contact: No on Knight 505 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-227-1020 Email: campaign@NoOnKnight.org http://www.NoOnKnight.org

Official proposition descriptions from the California Secretary of State # Elections Division.

Proposition 21 - 802. (SA97RF0076). Juvenile Crime. Initiative Statute. Proponent: Pete Wilson, David La Bahn, c/o Richard D. Martland (916) 446-6752 Increases punishment for gang-related felonies; death penalty for gang-related murder; indeterminate life sentences for home-invasion robbery, carjacking, witness intimidation and drive-by shootings; creates crime of recruiting for gang activities; and authorizes wiretapping for gang activities. Requires adult trial for juveniles 14 or older charged with murder or specified sex offenses; eliminates informal probation for juveniles committing felonies. Requires registration of gang members committing felonies; allows disclosure of information on juveniles committing serious felonies; limits sealing of violent offenses committed by juveniles14 or older; requires statewide reporting of felony juvenile records. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would result in unknown major net costs to the state of at least hundreds of millions of dollars annually and one-time costs of at least several hundreds of millions. It would also result in unknown net costs to local governments of at least tens of millions of dollars annually, and tens of millions to hundreds of million dollars in one-time costs.

Proposition 22 - 819. (SA98RF0014). Limit on Marriage. Proponent: Senator William J. "Pete" Knight Adds a provision to the Family Code providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would likely have no direct fiscal effect on state and local governments.