Laird says thanks

I am writing to thank all your readers who supported my recent campaign for the state Senate in the 15th District. I was pleased to have carried the district's northern three counties and cut my opponent's margin in half from the primary. I am also grateful to the Bay Area Reporter for publishing an issue-based opinion piece during the campaign.

In a period where there is great disenchantment with the political process, it was heartening that over a thousand people volunteered on my campaign, and over two thousand made a financial contribution. But a mid-summer special election in a gerrymandered district was just too high a hurdle to overcome. If it had been a November election, I would be getting ready to be sworn in. I am disappointed that the seat will be held – even temporarily – by someone that has never supported a gay civil rights bill during his legislative tenure.

The issues that were central to my campaign will still be in play during the November election. I urge voters to support Proposition 21 to save our state parks, oppose Proposition 23 to save California's landmark greenhouse gases law, and support Proposition 25 to lessen budget gridlock.

I look forward to continuing to work together on issues that move California and our area forward.

John Laird
Santa Cruz

Support for Nava's judicial campaign

Bravo to Michael Nava for displaying courage in the face of attempts to derail his campaign for Superior Court judge ["Nava unfazed by attacks in judicial race," Political Notebook, September 2].

Mr. Nava displays precisely the qualities that we need in judges here in San Francisco – beyond the influence of any one group, unwilling to waver in their determination, leaving politicking to the politicians. I have met Mr. Nava recently. His character and intelligence greatly impressed me. His manner portrays both confidence and leadership, while retaining empathy, comfort and understanding.

San Francisco's entrenched political elite have already taken hold of nearly every aspect of city governance. The judiciary must remain free of their influence. Michael Nava has my full support and my vote.

Bill Hemenger
San Francisco

The Proposition 8 legal fight

Rex Wockner has lucidly summarized the issues remaining in federal litigation concerning Proposition 8 ["Issues remain in Prop 8 federal case," August 26]. I agree with much of what he says but I disagree with his statement that if "no one is found to have standing to appeal" Judge Vaughn Walker's decision "Prop 8 would be stricken from the state constitution, and one more U.S. state would have same-sex marriage."

California's Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8. A federal district court decision is not binding on a state court – not even on matters of federal constitutional law. California's Supreme Court has said many times over many decades that "decisions of lower federal courts on federal questions are merely persuasive." [Rohr Aircraft Corp. v. County of San Diego, 51 Cal.2d 759 (1959)]. Only a decision of the United States Supreme Court can bind California's courts.

Further, Judge Walker's decision does not even bind other federal trial judges. A Plumas County clerk could, for example, refuse to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple on the grounds that Proposition 8 bans same-sex marriage. In litigation ensuing from such denial, a federal trial judge sitting in the Eastern District of California could conclude that Proposition 8 does not violate the United States Constitution.

We need the appeal on this case to advance as much as, probably more than, Protect Marriage, which can probably cope quite comfortably with the legal limbo resulting if there is no appeal.

Dan Leer
Pleasant Hill, California

Immigration and D8 supervisor race

Should undocumented immigrant youth who have been charged but not convicted of a crime be turned over to immigration authorities, guaranteeing their deportation? Supervisor candidate Scott Wiener says they should be, as he stated at the candidates' forum at Magnet last October. Because the mayor has chosen to ignore the Board of Supervisors' overriding of his veto of legislation requiring holding off turning over these innocent-until-proven-guilty youth, at last count earlier this year, nearly 200 families have been devastated by this policy, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. These are young people, who by and large are here through actions outside their control, and are being sent to countries where in many cases they have no family ties nor have even minimal familiarity. Wiener has no compassion when it comes to their situations.

The LGBT community learned a serious lesson in the Prop. 8 vote that we had not done our homework in reaching out to other communities for mutual support and understanding. Electing Wiener would exacerbate that division by declaring our community is unsympathetic to the plight of families with immigrant youth.

Further, should Wiener be elected and a similar issue were to arise at the Board of Supervisors involving undocumented partners of LGBT couples, who as we know cannot now marry here, how would Wiener vote? In order to be consistent wouldn't he need to vote against the LGBT community? Or would he have a double standard, one for the LGBT community and a different one for another?

Alan Collins
San Francisco

Voters should make up their own minds

The fight over endorsements by the city's various politicians and political clubs – and the complaints about the Bay Area Reporter's distorted coverage of those endorsements – is evidence of just how corrupt the whole endorsement system is among San Francisco's political machine.

Endorsements tend to reflect one thing – political patronage. Once candidates are elected, they are put in a position of having to please all of those whose support they were given during their campaign – not to mention during their prior political career. Their aim then, is not to do the thing that will provide the greatest good to the greatest number but rather, to continue to please and garner support from their endorsers in order to allow them to get elected again.

Until San Francisco voters start making up their own minds about whom to elect for office – and until candidates start making their positions clear so that voters can engage in that deliberation – San Francisco will keep electing the same breed of politician. This, to many people's minds, is exactly what has gotten the city into the fixes that it now finds itself with regard to its budget, its over-entitled workforce, and its economic doldrums.

I am voting for the candidates with the fewest endorsements who can actually speak their minds on the issues that face San Francisco.

Daniel Paylor
San Francisco

Dumbfounded by new rules at the river

I recently returned from a fun-filled weekend in Guerneville with our first-ever River Splash. The resorts were full as were the camp sites but I just don't understand what's going on up there. Promoters who bring in event weekends such as Sundance, Lazy Bear, Women's Weekend, Bear Market, and others are bringing in bucket loads of money to the local community and how are we received? We are threatened with arrests by (embarrassed) sheriff's deputies who are carrying out newfangled sound ordinances restricting (daytime) noise levels at pool parties.

Okay, I get it. Guerneville is not the "gay playground" it was in the late 1970s and 1980s. I get that the residential community has significantly (and wonderfully) multiplied, but Guerneville is still considered a resort town. To have a sheriff's deputy come by a pool party on a summer weekend afternoon to threaten to shut down the party because of noise (music) is simply insulting. It downgrades the hard work the businesses and innkeepers do to get business during a short summer window and makes planning events with new hoops to jump through frustrating and quite frankly, very expensive.

I don't think Guerneville wants to be referred to as a "sleepy resort town," so why is the county treating it like one? If I'm wrong, would somebody in authority please let us know what the rules for Guerneville in the 21st century are?

Harry Lit
Castrobear Presents
San Francisco