Since I'm now a registered California voter, I will be voting in Tuesday's election, and for the first time in my life I've had to make real decisions on what measures and candidates to support. (Minnesota doesn't usually have measures on the ballot, and I've only voted in general elections where the choice of candidate was clear.) The hardest choice was the $15bn bond measure to cover the deficit. Issuing bonds is bad; I'd rather see taxes go up, especially property taxes which are kept absurdly low rate due to Proposition 13. But according to the Legislative Analyst, who visited Flora's budgeting class, Sacramento sees no other way out. In addition, the bond issue is linked to another proposition which requires the legislature to pass a balanced budget, which seems like a good idea (though it may backfire on me and result in even more cuts to the UC budget). So I think I'll vote for it. The measure that increases bridge tolls to pay for BART improvements was a bit easier to decide on. As for the measure that increases Alameda County sales tax to pay for emergency medial services, I think I've lived with Noah long enough to be swayed to his point of view that sales taxes are evil and regressive, and anyway it's already over 8 percent. Now let's just hope I don't get seriously hurt in the next 5 years.

Choosing which presidential candidate to support is tough. I spent some time Friday night reading Kerry's and Edwards's web sites, in hopes of finding some tangible difference on policy issues. Alas, I was foiled; both sites give positions on many issues, and all of these positions are incredibly vague: "We will win the war on terrorism"; "We will create 300,000 jobs," etc. Since the two were pretty much indistinguishable, I was forced to resort to instinct: call me a Southist, I trust a Massachusetts senator to stand up for what I believe in more than a North Carolina one.

But there are seven other candidates on the ballot, and while none of them have a chance of winning, one could in theory vote for them. And in fact, while Dean may have had some serious flaws as a candidate, his platform and his track record as governor (actually running something) impress me more than Kerry's. (And my friend from Vermont really likes him.) Dean's web sites are still encouraging people to vote for him to ensure that the convention has "progressive" delegates. However, to get any delegates from California you need to have at least 15 percent of the statewide vote, which seems unlikely to happen for Dean. So the question is: do I throw my vote away making a statement for Dean, or do I join the herd of Kerry sheep? Stay tuned!

While I was in the process of reflecting, I turned my thoughts to today's hot-button issue, gay marriage. As far as I can tell, the Democratic candidates support "civil unions" that confer the same rights and benefits as marriage, but just has a different name. In trying to figure out if I could live with this, I asked myself the following: what if I had two heterosexual friends who told me they were having a "civil union"? My instinctive reaction is that whatever commitment they've made is not as deep or as binding as marriage. I don't want to be "civilly unified" one day; I want to be married. Since I see a tangible difference between the two, "civil unions" are insufficient. For true equal protection under the law, everyone should be allowed to use the word "marriage."

Here endeth Dave's Political Rant.