AZ State House District 12 Primary

Based on the response to my email below and my research, I plan on voting for Steve Montenegro and Jerry Weirs on Tues Sep 2.

They are running for the Republican primary for Arizona State House District 12. Here are the three choices on my ballot.

Steve Montenegro

Jerry P. Weiers

Robert Blendu

If any one know a reason to vote for a AZ Corporation Commision candidate, let me know.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rich Alger
Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: Lack of Internet Zoning Laws
To: Jerry Weiers , "John B. Nelson" , Robert Blendu , Steve Montenegro

I never got a response that I remember from any of my elected representatives to my email [Nov 19, 2007] on the CP80 Internet Zoning Initiative. I would like to hear your position on this and other topics.

What is your position on Ballot Proposition 102 which will put in the state constitution, "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state"?

What do you think of implementing something like this to increase transparency on the state house?http://wisegoodhonest.blogspot.com/2008/05/increase-government-transparency.html

Why are you better than the alternatives in the primary to help support and develop the state economy?

Why are you better than the alternatives in the primary to help support and develop alternatives for energy. How will you help or stay out of the way for private sector solutions for better energy security?

Why are you better than the alternatives in the primary to prevent necessary spending, to keep taxes low and ensure the state budget is solvent for years to come?

How will you keep us safe from security threats within our state?

Why should I contribute my time and money to help you get elected over the other primary election options?

-
Rich Alger
--------------------------------------

Here is the response of Steve Montenegro.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Montenegro
Date: Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: Lack of Internet Zoning Laws
To: Rich Alger

Dear Sir:

I'm sorry for the delay in responding. With the campaign in full mode I am spending most of my time knocking on doors and phoning voters to talk with them about the issues. Its very nice to have someone care enough to contact me instead!

In quick order here:

Yes, I do support protecting marriage. I know that opponents of the ballot proposition claim that we already have laws that do that, but they do not make that argument honestly. They know that mere laws are what were overturned in CA and Mass. and they would like the same to occur here. Only a constitutional amendment will offer real protection.

I support transparency efforts and believe it should all be available online. I would also like to see transparency extended to local governments as well.

I am a big admirer of Rep. Weiers and he and I are campaigning together for the two house seats. Rep. Weiers was just named "Champion of the Taxpayer"by the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers and he does an excellent job of protecting our vital interests while still looking out for the taxpayers.He is also excellent on issues of illegal immigration, transportation, and is widely considered the legislature's expert on issues relating to sportsmen and the outdoors.

Mr. Blendu's record is very much the opposite of Mr. Weiers'. He was just named "Friend of Big Government" by the same taxpayer group, he voted for last year's budget that put us into our current deficit, and he didn't even show up to vote on this year's budget. He is campaigning largely on the basis that he deserves the credit for I-10 getting one more lane of highway when credit goes to a much larger group of people, and he ignores the fact that he voted for $2.3 Billion for the light rail system for Phoenix and Tempe when Mr. Weiers was advocating for that money to be spent on additional freeways and busses that would actually help to relieve congestion. There are more areas of disagreement, but I don't want to turn this email into a barrage of complaints. Suffice it to say that Mr. Weiers and Mr. Blendu regularly end up on the opposite sides of these votes and they cancel each other out. That makes no sense to me and I don't believe it benefits the district or the state.

Alternative energy is not yet a topic that I am overly familiar with,although I know that I will be spending a fair amount of time on it between the election and the start of the session (should I be fortunate enough to win). In general, I support alternate energy sources, clean energy sources,and especially domestic energy sources. Where I get concerned is when government uses mandates and often brute force to dictate winners and losers, often disregarding market forces. This results in inefficiency that manifests itself in higher rates for ratepayers, usually without producing the results that we were promised. I favor limited government and freemarkets.

Regarding taxes and the budget, I would refer you to my earlier answer regarding my opinions of the rest of the field. On these issues Mr. Weiers is rock-solid and Mr. Blendu is not. I see eye to eye with Mr. Weiers on these issues.

As far as security threats go, much of what I've learned comes from my work for Congressman Trent Franks. Our focus tends to be more on national security threats than Arizona-specific threats, but I think that my knowledge would be a compliment to the knowledge already present at the Capitol. Secure borders remains a focus for both Mr. Weiers and myself,while Mr. Blendu's proposal for a brand new guest worker plan that allows unlimited "guests" into our state makes little sense until the border is secured and we can track and account for those in our country.

Regarding contributions, I am maxed out on contributions, but Mr. Weiers may still take additional contributions. We would both be very grateful for anytime you could contribute, especially on Election Day where we will have volunteers manning the polling locations. As to why you might help? I hope that my responses indicate that Weiers and Montenegro are solid conservative Republicans who will do what is best for the district and the state.
Thanks again for taking the time to write!

~Steve Montenegro
www.MontenegroAZ.com
-------------------------------------------

Campaining for John McCain

For several months I have felt blase about politics. I felt different after listening to John McCain late Saturday night. He will make a fine President. I fully support him and have decided to do what I can to help him get elected. Today I am donating to http://www.johnmccain.com, http://yesformarriage.com/ and http://protectmarriage.com/.

I am also going to research some candidates for local and state office as well as propositions. I will post the result of my research here on this site. I would love your input so I make the best choices this election season.

We must be informed on what we vote for. Don't forget to register to vote.

Update 2008-08-22

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM, [a friend of mine] wrote:
I am not really sure if he will make a fine president. Some of his stands are really far left for a conservative Republican. But the more I learn about Barack Hussein Obama, GO MCCAIN!!!!!

Maybe I meant that he will be "fine" or good enough as president. I do believe McCain will do everything in his power to keep our country secure.

I also like what I believe is his sentiment behind campaign finance reform. I do NOT like McCain-Feingold. We should not hog tie ourselves when it comes to campaign finance. I do support increasing transparency in government. We should know as much as is possible exactly who supports what campaign.

"church and state on a collision course"

I have found some answers to the question I posted Sunday.

Those seeking to redefine marriage to include same-sex marriage are seeking the collective acceptance of its citizens. Once same-sex marriage is codified in law, more measures will be taken to force the acceptance of same-sex relationships.

From The Divine Institution of Marriage:

Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.” Banned in Boston...

One case I found today is the California Supreme Court saying that doctors cannot refuse treatment of gays on religious grounds. A doctor did not want to help a lesbian get pregnant with donated sperm.

Another case in 2006:

Catholic Charities of Boston made the announcement on March 10: It was getting out of the adoption business. "We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples."

There are many more instances like this. There is no inherent right to acceptance. I do "not object to rights ... regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference. " Divine. Thomas Sowell said:

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.

Here are some other sources I have found with reasonable arguments for traditional marriage.

http://thechair.blogtownhall.com/

http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/the-cultural-argument-against-gay-marriage

http://calmarriagedefense.blogspot.com/

Persuade Someone without a Reference to Religious Belief

Do you have any insight as to how I could persuade someone without a reference to religious belief that "only marriage between a man and a woman [should be] valid or recognized" by the state (CA Prop 8).

A month ago, I asked a question like the above of some friends. I strongly believe that "The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

This morning I found The Divine Institution of Marriage. A document "to explain [the LDS church's] reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative" I have not read it all yet. It has given me some points of reason that might persuade voters to constitutionally define traditional marriage.

The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

I agree with this. Defining traditional marriage is not about taking away civil rights.

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special privileges aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these privileges to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.

I will probably post more as I read through this and gather other sources to support these propositions.

Here is a list of some of the public statements the LDS church has taken on Same Sex Marriage:

20 October 2004. "The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship"
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-statement-on-same-gender-marriage

Last date noted: March 2005. Church Joins Other Faith Groups in Defense of Traditional Marriage
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/church-joins-other-faith-groups-in-defense-of-traditional-marriage

24 February 2008. Care for the Flock. "On 23 February 2008 The Salt Lake Tribune posted an article about [Peter] Danzig who was a member of the Church’s Orchestra at Temple Square. According to the story, in June of 2006 Mr. Danzig published a letter-to-the-editor in the Tribune (and letters in other local newspapers) encouraging members to oppose Church leaders on the issue of same gender marriage."
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/care-for-the-flock

30 June 2008. California and Same-Sex Marriage. "The following letter was sent from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008"
"We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage

13 August 2008, The Divine Institution of Marriage. "The California Supreme Court recently ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California"
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

UPDATE 2008-11-03:
Some one sent me a link to a speech by Robert George, "On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government". He is a Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.

I have not listened to all of it but I like it so far.