Talking about abortion is my least favorite topic for political discussion.  The subject is so divisive, and opinions are so deeply rooted in each person's belief system, that meaningful debate is practically impossible in the U.S.  While I fully understand that rhetoric will not normally sway another person from their opinion, there still exists some room for discussion.

Enter California Proposition 4, the "Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy," or "Sarah's Law."  If passed, the proposition will change procedures for parental notification when an unemancipated minor seeks an abortion.  As the law stands, minors and adults have the same rights to end their pregnancies.  In addition, doctors would have the burden of both informing the minor's guardian and of waiting 48 hours before admitting an underage patient. 

Still, Prop 4 isn't about endorsing a pro-life or pro-choice agenda.  This proposition speaks to how voters think about how families operate.  Prop 4 tests the boundaries of what voters consider acceptable behavior by female children and their parents.  But do the changes merit a yes vote to appease parents left out of the loop of their daughter's sexual activity? 

Two interesting articles in the Union-Tribune recently: the County Board of Supervisors wants to raise taxes to pay for increased fire protection and the City of San Diego is investigating whether it overspent on clean-up after the 2007 wildfires.

On a related issue, the state still hasn't passed a balanced budget for the current fiscal year and Governor Schwarzenegger is reportedly considering a one cent sales tax increase (temporary, yeah right) to cover the projected shortfall.

Especially in this economy, why should any voter give these leaders more money to spend? Why should the voters increase their own taxes and create a new agency of bureaucrats when the existing institutions are still trying to explain how they spent the resources at their disposal during the last crisis?

Our leaders need to prioritize their projects and do their best within their existing resources, just like every other family and business trying to make do in this economy. Admitting failure and asking for more money from the voters is not the answer.

Photo: Richard Bolt

The Governator, The Gunfighter and The Brother In-Law

A Dramatic Work In Progress

The Players

Arnold - The Governor

Maria - His Wife

Their Children

Clint Eastwood - Former California State Parks Board member - terminated by Schwarzenegger, former Mayor of Carmel, The Gunfighter

Bobby Shriver - Maria's brother, Santa Monica Councilman, and former California State Parks Board member - also terminated

 The Scene:

The Governor's breakfast table. Arnold and Maria look great, even this early. Super fit and lovely Schwarzenegger children bound to and fro the table. Arnold lays his paper down, suddenly serious.

I've learned in life to never say never. I never thought I'd be spouting politics on the Internet for all to see. I never thought I'd buy one of those tiny toy dogs since I have five manly boys in my family. I never thought I'd live in the desert, but guess who's moving to Las Vegas? Yep, it's true. I'm leaving paradise and moving to the desert right in the middle of the summer. Great plan, eh?

When my twin sister married a man who was born and raised in Sin City my husband and I felt sorry for her, knowing that she'd probably be surrounded by tumbleweeds for the rest of her life. My husband laughed and said "Vegas looks just like San Diego... after a nuclear holocaust!" Guess who's laughing now.

The recent housing crisis has hit my family particularly hard. My husband owns a real estate appraisal company and both of us are also Realtors. Because the real estate market is somewhat cyclical, we have lived through a roller coaster existence of feast or famine our entire married life together. The feasting cycles were awesome, but the famine times stunk. 

As mortgage rates continue to climb and home values continue to fall, our livelihood has taken a hit. Add rising gas and food costs, braces on the kids, and our second son joining his older brother in college this fall and we've just joined the "People Who Adore San Diego But Can't Afford To Live Here Anymore" club.

Photo: Charles Hartley

While checking out the cows and sheep and other farm animals at the San Diego County Fair on Tuesday, I got to thinking about a ballot initiative I'd seen. So when I got back to work I promptly looked it up: Proposition 2 on the November ballot, would prohibit "cruel confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs" after January 1, 2015.

This doesn't directly apply to the fair, both because nothing like that seemed to be happening there, but also the initiative, Proposition 2, would exempt rodeos, state and county fairs, and 4-H programs from its provisions.

But in my mind, as with all the initiatives I'm asked to vote on, the question became 'why.'  Why is this necessary? Assuming the cause is just, how has the current law failed, and will this proposed change lead to a better something-or-other?

Imperial Beach recently changed their city code to almost close a loophole that allowed alcohol to be openly consumed at the end of the Imperial Beach pier.

The Union-Tribune's June 24 article on the change provides a good summary of the recent changes in local law to ban the consumption of alcohol on local beaches. The issue has been particularly contentious in Pacific Beach. Web sites for and against San Diego's ban on beach alcohol have hotly debated the issue.

Personally, I'm for personal responsibility. I don't like governments or anyone else telling me what to do when I'm not hurting anyone else. 

I've read everything my fellow bloggers have written this week and I feel the arguments have been made, the facts given and the Web sites noted. I wrote several weeks ago about my support of the judges' decision and why.

I am thrilled for Chuck and his husband, and knowing the reflective and thoughtful man he is, I wish them much joy.

Of course, as my fellow blogger, his column is a hard act to follow so I've had to revert to the philosophy major I once was, to examine the significance of the legalization of same-sex marriage.

As I tended the deaths of my parents, 13 years apart, I had ample time to reflect on what a person's life finally means, regardless of what they have achieved. In the end, what really matters is that one has loved and has been loved. How is it wrong to allow any citizens the right to publicly proclaim, sanctify and legitimize their love, giving their union the dignity it deserves?

When you've been a mother as long as I have (27 years) you learn to give up preconceptions, cut to the chase, and realize what really matters. I imagine there are a great number of mothers across California that breath easier, knowing that their child will have a partner to go through life with, in a legally recognized and culturally sanctioned commitment.

To answer Nicole's question, yes, I support marriage equality and the California Supreme Court's May 15 decision on the issue. Jumping to the chase, I'm very supportive because they directly led to my ability on June 18 to create a union recognized by the state of California with the man I want to spend the rest of my life with.

My opinion on the issue comes after many years of personal observation and reflection, and was not a direct or easy path. After too many years of dealing professionally with the failures of marriage, first in my security work for the State Department and later working on family law issues as an attorney, I honestly wondered why anyone would want to participate in the archaic institution. 

Starting in law school though, for the first time I thought about the philosophy and history of marriage. I would still question marriage in the Anglo tradition: the concepts of a wife giving a unilateral promise of obedience to her husband, and fathers giving their daughters away as though they were property is insulting and degrading. I did come to appreciate the history and philosophical approach behind community property though, an approach to marriage dating back to ancient Spanish law.

The philosophy is easily shown by looking at the 15th century marriage of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, a union the resulted in the unification of Spain as one county under their grandson: marriage is a union of two equals who have decided to share everything forever. In my mind this was the correct approach to marriage and how I wanted to spend my life - part of a union based on mutual respect and equal standing.

I'm a freak. I admit it. For starters, I'm a Republican. I was a virgin when I got married at age 24. I've never touched alcohol or cigarettes in my entire life. I don't swear. I even drive the speed limit (well, most of the time). See, I told you, I'm a freak. At least compared to the world's standards.

I'm also a Christian who had a gay man and a lesbian as two of my bridesmaids at my wedding. No, I didn't make my gay friend wear a bridesmaid's dress. They were two of my dearest friends and I wanted them to be a part of my special day.

I have quite a few gay and lesbian friends who are celebrating California's court ruling allowing them to legally marry. I'm happy for them. I'm thrilled they have found love and that they want to commit themselves and their life to another person. Love is a beautiful thing, BUT. 

Yes, there's a BUT.  At the same time, I also think that legalizing same-sex marriage is going to take us down a slippery slope for several reasons. While California has been celebrating and everyone on this blog has been blissfully applauding homosexual nuptials, I feel like I'm going to rain on everyone's rainbow parade if I say anything but congratulations. There are several concerns I'd like to bring up in order to play Devil's Advocate... or maybe in this case, Heaven's Advocate. 

It is surprisingly difficult to determine what exactly is being protected through opposition to same-sex marriage. Allowing that society, tradition, family values, children and culture are under dire threat if gay marriage is allowed; a fair-minded person might expect a clear rationale as to how the threat manifests itself.

For example, it might be argued that stupid people should not be allowed to marry.

More often than not, they produce stupid children. Stupid people are a drag on the economy, they behave badly in public, they drive poorly when it rains, they are not good listeners, they tell bad jokes, they lead us into stupid wars and they impose their stupid beliefs on others. Society, children and culture suffer when the stupid wed. There is at least a coherent argument against idiot marriages.

Personally, I have no quarrel with imbecilic unions because the pursuit of happiness trumps most other considerations. When the ignoramus meets his match, the bliss doubles by some counts.