Social

California is a large and diverse state. It is simply reality that Berkeley is not Bakersfield, and Barstow is not Brentwood, and we should not be attempting to force conformity.  But individual rights and freedoms do need to be protected against intrusion by the government.

Marriage - So why should the government get to look down your pants and tell you who you can and cannot marry?  For those of us who want government power to be limited, this is about as intrusive as it gets.  Government should not be in the business of telling us who to marry.  Our parents get to do that.   

Firearms - This is really an urban vs. rural issue.  Guns tend to mean something different in the country than they do in the city. A man walking into a bar in Oakland carrying an Uzi is likely to cause a very different reaction than a man walking into a bar in Jackson carrying a hunting rifle.   This fact, coupled with the federal constitutional aspects of this issue, makes it difficult to craft a workable statewide approach. Accordingly, it makes the most sense for California to support reasonable local or regional approaches.  

Abortion - This is more of a philosophical issue than a legal one, but we have more lawyers than philosophers.  The fundamental question is, "When does life begin?"  To the extent our society has answered that question, the law on abortion should largely follow.  While there is not universal agreement, the general view seems to be essentially a continuum, with the potential for life increasing from conception until birth.

If life began unequivocally at conception, the law should ban all abortions except for a serious threat to the life of the mother.  There would be no abortion for rape or incest or severe birth defects; after all, we don't kill infants or children for those things.  This approach is too extreme for California.  Even South Dakota voters rejected this approach.

At the other end of the spectrum, if life did not begin at all until birth, then the law should not prohibit any abortions for almost any reason.  Even an abortion of a viable fetus minutes before birth would be okay.  This outcome probably gives almost everyone the heebie jeebies.  Again, this approach is too extreme.  

What seems to work best, and what our society has adopted in a rather haphazard way, is an increasing potential for life.  Before conception there is no life, and during gestation the potential for life increases until birth, when it becomes fully realized. Under this approach, an abortion soon after conception would generally be acceptable, but an abortion very close to birth would generally be unacceptable.

Federal law, under Roe v. Wade, is roughly consistent with this approach, as is California law.  This should remain the law until and unless our society consciously comes up with a different answer to the underlying philosophical issue of when life begins.

Privacy - The right to privacy - in our homes, bedrooms, data, and bodies - must be protected.  At least six amendments to the Unitied States Constitution (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th) support the right to privacy, and the California Constitution expressly grants the right to privacy.  The right to privacy is essential to a free society, and must not be eroded or surrendered due to fear or complacency.

Adoption - California needs to do all it can to support and encourage adoption. Much progress has been made in recent years to make adoption easier, including the Safe Surrender laws that allow for babies to be dropped off - no questions asked - at hospitals and fire stations. More progress can be made in our legal structures and practices to ensure that both birth parents and prospective adoptive parents know that adoption is available and a good option, and to make it faster and easier for children to find a permanent and loving home.