Gay Rights, the Drug War, and Civil Liberties Issues

By Liz Michael

Freedom to Define Family, Proposition 22, Assisted Suicide, Sexual Freedom, Religious Liberty, the Internet, Affirmative Action.

The Knight Initiative, also known as the "Limitation Of Marriage Act", or Proposition 22, is another version of the "Definition Of Marriage Act". The stated purpose of proponents is to see marriage defined as being between a man and a woman, and forbidding the recognition of any other configuration of marriage.

However, I support the rights of sexual minorities, and I support the rights of all people, regardless of orientation, to civilly marry whom they choose and love whom they choose.

But Proposition 22 is not just aimed at gay people. It is aimed at all Californians. It is a statement by some, based on their own religious interpretation, that the State of California should insert itself into YOUR family, and define YOUR family as valid or invalid. I wholehearted reject this concept and reject Proposition 22.

Unfortunately, my Republican opponents have chosen to side with those who would continue to perpetuate hatred and divisiveness toward gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual people and unfortunately support this initiative. In a district which will not elect anyone opposed to gay rights.

I support domestic partnership arrangements, support the rights of sexual minorities to adopt, and support the freedom of all people to orient, define, and arrange their families in whatever manner they as individuals choose. I support allowing cities and counties to issue marriage certificates which are "gender neutral".

Sexual Liberties

I will work for the repeal of all state and federal laws regarding consensual sexual relations between adults, including prostitution, pandering, sodomy and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of sexual minorities. Nuisances such as street prostitution should be banned on a local level under nuisance and zoning ordinances. If a legal venue for buyers and sellers of sexual services is allowed somewhere, it will be easier to rid these things in areas where it is not desired.

I will work for the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material featuring adults, among adults, independent of "socially redeeming value" or compliance with "community standards"; I do not personally support porn: I see most pornography as a corruption and distortion of real sexuality which is counterproductive to the promotion of healthy sexuality. However, who is it that should determine what is "healthy", what is "acceptible"? And even if someone is distributing material that is clearly perverse, does that individual deserve to be imprisoned for doing that? Not unless he has compelled someone, killed someone, or victimized a minor. I reject this concept of "if it is wrong, it should therefore be illegal".

I do not believe that sex and nudity is such a disgusting thing that having it seen is something which should be subject to prosecution and imprisonment. I believe that this puritan aversion some of us in America seem to have toward all things sexual is itself somewhat unnatural, and opens the gate for various perversions of sex.

Religious Liberties

Freedom is something that has a strong religious grounding for me. In the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, when were true believers in God most free to worship God as they knew they should? The period of the Judges. What kind of government existed during the period of the Judges? One of the most libertarian governments believers in God ever lived under in history. When the Israelites began to demand to "be like the rest of the world", and have kings rule over them, God warned them that what they were about to do would result in disaster. And it did. It ushered in a period of successive governments where, with few exceptions, true believers in God were persecuted.

The history of this very country demonstrates a similar principle. When libertarian principles were followed, true believers in God were allowed to prosper. But whenever those principles were abandoned, as in state churches, as in the witch hunts, and as in slavery, monstrous evils resulted, invariably with persecutions against believers.

Again, I see people, most of whom are earnest believers in God, making these same mistakes. I will readily admit to being a sinner and even a scoundrel at times. But I know enough to know this. To have the freedom to worship God as you see is right, you have to grant the freedom to others, to worship God, or to not worship God, as they will. You may preach at the pulpit all you wish on what is wrong and what is right, even if I think you're wrong. Even using the bully pulpit of public office to encourage morality is good. But trying to compel righteousness through legal authority never works. All we have to do is look at the Pharisees, Imperial Rome, and the Holy Roman Empire to see what man-devised theocracies become: that period of the Judges worked for the most part, and the closer America followed its example, the better a country, and dare I say, a more godly country, we were.

Prayer in Public School

I oppose in general, organized prayer in public school led by a public official: that clearly is not constitutional. However, students are not public officials, and I believe any attempt to censor a student's freedom of speech or assembly, during such things as valedictorian addresses and football games over religious conduct, or even the wearing of religious insignia, is equally unconstitutional. Moreover, I do not believe that a teacher should be persecuted or expelled from a public school, for attempting to comfort a class during a tragedy with spontaneous prayer, as a teacher in New York was recently victimized some time ago. Nor do I believe a teacher should be compelled to supress his or her religious beliefs or hide them. I do not believe that the First Amendment requires a school to avoid all reference to God at all costs. Forbiding establishment of a religion does not equate with censorship of religious expression. The First Amendment clearly declares the opposite.

The Drug War

The war on drugs has been a total utter failure on the supply side. It has cost untold billions in police resources, prison and jail space and expenses, and law enforcement corruption. Drug profits have financed violent crime, a weapons black market, foreign terrorist movements, gangs, and organized crime families. The drug war has cost innocent police officers and civilians their lives. It has brought police and sheriff's departments into a major game of confiscation profiteering which has gotten both cops and innocent citizens killed across the country.

The chief agencies which are charged with stemming the traffic have actually become the chief conduits for drugs entering the country. In fact the NAFTA agreement was tailor-made for the enabling of drug trafficking, and has allowed Mexico to become a much bigger conduit for this traffic. Drugs are easier and cheaper to get than ever.

Moreover, the drug war has put many of our best and brightest young people in prison, ruining their lives far beyond what drug use itself naturally does. A third of our young Black men are held enslaved to the prison and the justice system as a result. We put more people in prison than any other country on the face of the earth: we have more prisoners per capita than the former Soviet Union, more than South Africa under apartheid. And we are fast becoming a terrorist and corrupt police state of the type we always pledged to fight during the Cold War. And all for drugs.

Can Legalization Work?

I don't propose legalization as a panacea. And it is not without complications. But it is critical that we strongly consider either the legalization, or the decriminalization of use, of at least some drugs which are now illegal, if we are to solve the problems of both drugs and crime. Only a small part of the drug problem is a criminal problem. We are better able to fight drug addiction if we reprioritize our resources. We must treat the use of drugs as a medical problem.

Some benefits of decriminalization are: controlled dosing, increased tax revenue, criminal justice system savings, less corruption in law enforcement, economic revival, less drug violence and more violent criminals kept in jail.

Affirmative Action

I oppose affirmative action based on race or ethnicity and supported Proposition 209. I believe that making decisions on people based on their race is itself racist. Only affirmative actions programs based on factors which truly constitute disadvantagement, such as economic class, income, or poverty, are worthy concepts in my opinion.

I believe that all racial classifications by governments should be eliminated. This includes the census.

Regulation of the Internet

Simply stated, I do not believe the internet should be regulated in any way that any other area of society would not also be regulated. Most of the freedom of the net can be summed up in the First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly. I also oppose moves by some to burden internet commerce with cumbersome tax requirements.

I do however, support the recents efforts of Congressman Jim Rogan to protect businesspeople and private citizens through fighting the practice of cybersquatting extortion on domain names which are clear trademarks, tradenames, or real names of others.

Protection of Children from Vice

The primary responsibility for protection and supervision of children rests with parents and guardians, not the state. I do not believe that vendors of any particular item, substance, literature, film, video, or web site, should be punished for having a minor simply stumble upon them, or having a minor seeking them out. Certainly I support easily verifiable measures such as carding for cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, firearms, and pornography. But I believe their responsiblity is limited to what a vendor can reasonably be expected to supervise, such as activity on his premises or in the vicinity of his premises.

The web is a complex issue, and some legislators want to go to extraordinary measures to somehow guarantee a minor will never see certain sites. But in most states, individuals under 18 cannot sign a contract without parental consent. Therefore, they cannot legally contract to purchase a computer, or contract to purchase web access, without the consent of a parent. Therefore, the real problem with kids getting into pornographic web sites really rests with parental failure to adequately supervise them. This is not the fault of either the state or of the site owner: therefore, they should not be held accountable for parental irresponsibility. Nor should the site owner be forced to make the decision for the parent of what a child should or should not see.

I do support measures that would require the filter of pornographic sites on computers likely to be found in use by children in public places, such as schools or school libraries. Even here, though, we must be very careful so as not to infringe upon the liberty of individuals seeking free information, and leave the decisions as to what and what not to formally filter to individual school, library and community standards.

Gambling

While gambling gone awry certainly could be defined as a potentially addictive and destructive behavior, I believe the state, by endorsement of its own gambling program, the California Lotto, lacks any moral standing to argue the continued illegality of gambling. While I believe that localities have the right to regulate whether gaming establishments shall exist in their community, and if so, where, I do not believe the State of California has any legitimate interest in the criminalization of fair gaming of any type.

I do, however, support the elimination of the California Lottery, and government operated lotteries in general. Of course, I realize this won't happen. Government is more addicted to gambling than we are.

Driving

The issuance of drivers' licenses should rest solely on the ability of any given individual to drive, and on no other factor, such as their identity, their citizenship, their gender, or any other factor.

It is my opinion that the practice of setting roadblocks to randomly test for intoxicated drivers is blatantly unconstitutional, and that law enforcement should not be allowed to stop a driver without probable cause that a crime or violation is being committed, has been committed, or that an individual is reasonably expected to have a warrant for his arrest.

Self-Medication

I believe in the repeal of laws prohibiting self-medication, and believe that many currently controlled substances should be decontrolled. I believe in the legalization of any and all medicinal substances, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that either the claims made for the product are fraudulent, or that the dangers of the drug significantly outweigh any possible benefits. I oppose any moves for prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances. I believe that state discrimination against alternative medical disciplines such as oesteopathy, acupuncture, eastern and tribal medicine, wholistic medicine, herbal medicine, and chiropractic medicine should cease.

Loosen FDA Restrictions

Additionally, prescription requirements for many drugs should be dropped. And many FDA banned drugs should not be banned. Many drugs proven somewhat effective in tests overseas are still banned in this country because of the FDA bureaucracy: this is an outrage and must stop. How many terminal patients is the FDA killing by banning and supressing certain experimental remedies?

Suicide and Assisted Suicide

I do not believe there should be laws against suicide. However, I do not believe that allowing others to assist in a suicide, or allowing someone to wilfully and artificially terminate a patient's life can be allowed. I have great concern when others enter into a decision, or attempt in influence a decision, of any individual to commit suicide, or make a self-decision that this is what the patient "would have wanted". I have yet to see assisted suicide laws that adequately protect a patient's right not to be killed or protect a patient's right to change their mind.

Other Victimless Crimes

Because only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes, I favor the repeal of any law creating "crimes" without victims.