NVR Logo
Home » News » Local
Same-sex marriages start in Napa
Morning line forms at county office
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
By JILLIAN JONES
Register Staff Writer
Related
Carol Whichard and Deb Stallings have dubbed themselves the “official crusaders of marriage equality in Napa County.”

Every year on Valentine’s Day, they arrive at the Napa County Recorder’s office asking to be married. Every year, they have been turned away, sent off with the promise that when California recognizes same-sex marriage, they will be greeted with open arms.
Tuesday morning, the couple saw that promise realized, becoming the first same-sex couple in Napa County to receive a marriage license.

They join thousands of gay couples across the state who, for the first time, legally wed or just received their licenses in the state of California.
The milestone follows a May 15 California Supreme Court ruling that overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

“It’s history in the making,” Whichard said. “Nobody can ever, ever, ever take this day away.”
The mood was one of celebration Tuesday, with couples lining up as early as 7:30 a.m. for marriage licenses in Napa County. Whichard and Stallings burst through the doors with balloons, cameras and a bevy of friends singing “The Chapel of Love.”

A total of 18 couples applied for marriage licenses Tuesday, Napa County Recorder John Tuteur said. Half were same-sex couples, and five were married by the end of the day.

“May we be the first of hundreds,” Stallings said, as she and Whichard received their marriage license in front of a crowd of joyous onlookers.

“This exact fight we don’t have to fight anymore,” she said.

The two will hold a “traditional” ceremony officiated by state Sen. Patricia Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa, in September.

On their anniversary, which happens to be Nov. 7, they are hoping for a victory for same-sex couples at the polls.

Karin Ashford and Kim Kocher, the second couple to receive a same-sex marriage license in Napa County, refused to wait another day before they married after 21 years together. “We wanted to be part of history,” said Kocher, who married Ashford Tuesday afternoon during a ceremony officiated by Tuteur.

Wearing golden green dresses and their mothers’ wedding rings, the couple married in a small, simple afternoon ceremony that began with the traditional “We are gathered here today.” The brides held matching white bouquets and stood in front of the rose garden at Napa’s historic courthouse.

“I just never thought it would happen to me,” said Ashford, who, said she was still a young girl when she gave up on the idea of having a traditional wedding like her siblings.

“We’re just equal now,” Ashford said. “We’re just a couple of gals going to get married and it feels really good. … The Supreme Court basically gave us our civil rights back.”

Despite increased police presence, the day came and went in Napa with little protest on the streets.

One protester, Tom Kerruish of Napa, held a sign that read, “Wickedness never was happiness.”

But those applying for marriage licenses were for the most part unconcerned.

“It is his civil right to stand there,” said Kocher.

Richard Schull, who received a same-sex marriage license Tuesday morning, said he’s just happy “to be able to join the human race again.”
171 comment(s)

NValleyGirl wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:17 PM:

" How wonderful! This is history being made, and truly exciting.

Congrats to all of the newly weds! "

cedwardswine wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:26 PM:

" Congratulations Deb and Carol and the rest of the couples. We have been fighting for this for many years. They key is for us to protect this right in November. Let's celebrate this victory but also not rest until we have equal civil rights for all across this great land of ours. The wisdom of our founding fathers and mothers is on our side and smiling this day on the victory for freedom and happiness.

To freedom Chris & Scott "

Farmgirl wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:29 PM:

" When I was in school, homosexuality was considered sexual deviancy in the psychology textbooks. In such a short time the public has been brainwashed into believing this is the same as marriage between a man and a woman. What a sad commentary on our society and further down the slippery slope of breakdown of the moral fiber of our country. The majority of Californians voted against this and for the court to change our vote is a horrendous miscarriage of the wishes of the people of California. In short, how disgusting! "

cfpotter wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:05 PM:

" To Farmgirl, I wish you compassion towards those who have no choice in their orientation and for the God you worship to have forgiveness on your bitter soul. To Deb and Carol and the other couples who will finally enjoy this civil right, congratulations. "

oldnapaguy wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:06 PM:

" I also think this is teaching our kids there is no right or wrong. What ever people can imagine is O.K.
There are no more morals in our society "

vinolady wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:17 PM:

" What could be wrong in loving another human being? Marriage is the wonderful commitment of ones love for another...finally open to all people. It's about time! Congratulations! "

hawkeye wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:23 PM:

" I think farmgirl needs to get with the times! Schools also taught (back in the stoneage) that minorities were a social underclass. Do you farmgirl, really believe that homosexuals are a social underclass as you imply? Hatred toward homosexuals is just as bad as racism. I hope you someday realize we all deserve equal rights. Homosexuals don't choose their orientation, just as a different colored skin person doesn't choose their race. I'am not homosexual myself but I take offense to your comment. What is morally wrong with loving another person of the same sex? Somebody please enlighten me. Why is that disgusting as you say? Just because someone taught that homosexuality is wrong, back in the dark ages, you buy into it? If anything, people who view it as filth has themselves been brainwashed. My only regret about same sex marriage is that it wasn't approved a long time ago. Our local economy will also benefit. "

NValleygirl wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:27 PM:

" oldnapaguy: What? So two loving, consenting adults get married and all of a sudden there is no right or wrong. "Whatever people imagine is ok"? What does that even mean?

farmgirl: really you are going to fall back on something that has been removed from the DSM for around 30 years? What else can we "re-learn" from the time you were in school? "

napan007 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:33 PM:

" Congratulations to all of the newlyweds!! What a historic day!!! "

cathyodom wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:33 PM:

" Congratulations! Looking forward to more pictures and videos. Nice story in the Chronicle about the 80-something couple who got married yesterday. "

Two Cents wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:37 PM:

" I find it very interesting, not to mention hypocritical, that many of you who are in favor of this issue and all that encompasses moving forward in society, past racism and "stoneage" thinking, etc., find it acceptable to bash someone for their personal beliefs. That's not very PC of all of you, certainly not very showing of tolerance or acceptance.
Farmgirl clearly has a different opinion than some of you, but is it really fair to criticize her for it? You should realize there are still plenty of people out there who are not comfortable with this lifestyle. They should not be condemned for their belief in that, whether due to their religion or otherwise.
If all you people are making the point to let others live their life according to their own beliefs and values, then shouldnt Farmgirl be entitled to the same? She should be able to be just as vocal as all of you in her beliefs without being condemned for it. Shame on all of you for trying to make one person feel that their morals/beliefs/values are any less important or acceptable than yours. Its reverse discrimination and its wrong.. "

eas001 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:39 PM:

" Yeah, what happened to the good old days when women were considered the property of their husbands - No moral values in this country anymore!!!! "

ncwines wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:44 PM:

" Much congratulations to all the couples! Today is a wonderful day for humanity!

It's about time!!! "

707jng wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:50 PM:

" Farmgrl - wow, how old are you? it's been awhile since any doctor has said this was "sexual deviancy". Sorry you feel this is so bad for you and our society. Have you actually considered HOW this is going to effect YOU? and why it upsets you so to see two peope who love each other get the same rights as the rest of the world? FINALLY?? they're not forcing you to go to the weddings so how will this effect you? just curious...

I'm so happy for this couple and I hope more couples that have been together long enough to know they want to be with each other forever get married too! I will definitely be at the polls in November making sure this can happen from now on! "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:01 PM:

" I'd like to congratulate Farmgirl and oldnapaguy on their CHOICE to be heterosexual. It is a choice, right? Both of you made a decision at some point in your life that you wanted to be attracted to the opposite sex. Didn't you? Please, feel free to share with us the way you fought off those horrible feelings you had for the same sex after making your choice to be hetero. Whatever you did could work for homosexuals and you could save this country and our society!!! "

Vercingetorex wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:03 PM:

" If this is all about letting people love how they wish and whom they wish, please explain all the hostility and outright hatred towards the polygamists in Utah, Texas and Colorado?
When do they get their "rights" too?
Frankly you can't let a small minority group decide what the ages old institution of marriage means, all of a sudden, and not allow others in on this game as well.
It's called the law of unintended consequences.
See you all in September. "

JustMy$.02 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:12 PM:

" Hawkee, the problem here is both sides of the fence refuse to acknowledge the others potential to be correct. First off I will agree with you on two issues, 1 gays are not a social underclass and 2 hatred of someone for just being gay is horrible.
However I would like to address a couple of other statements you made. 1 Homosexuals dont choose thier orientation. Well Alcoholics dont choose to have alcoholism, cancer patients dont choose to have cancer, but we still try and help find those with ailements a solution (or potentially a cure) for thier problems. Homosexuality is a psycological disorder if not a 'chosen' lifestyle. There is no scientific proof (at this point) that a 'gay' gene exists.
2 You asked what is morally wrong with loving another person of the same sex. Unfortunately we would have to come to an agreement on what is morally acceptable first wouldnt we? Because Im sure most liberal minds would not accept the various reasons outlined in the bible I dont think that will happen will it? How about a biological reason instead? Seems to me that homosexuality in humans violates that one doesnt it? Or do you need an explanation on how humans procreate?
3 You state people who view it (homosexuality) as filth (your word not mine) have themselve been brainwashed. Playing devils advocate here, funny how easily that can be turned around isnt it; People that have come to accept homosexuality have been brainwashed into believing it is morally acceptable behaviour.
4 Finally you state that our local economy will also benefit. Considering the recession were in, that is a bonus!! "

psychochik wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:31 PM:

" Congrats to everyone celebrating this historic event by tying the knot. It is great to see that two people who have loved eachother for so long can now make their commitment official.

Still though, it saddens me that so many people look at homosexuality as a bad thing. Its two human beings that love eachother. Since when is that a bad thing ?? "

napaao wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:33 PM:

" congrats those who have been waiting for this day!! yay for being gay!!! "

funnyme wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:34 PM:

" Yuck! "

GetReal! wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:39 PM:

" Whatever happened to shame and embarassment? Why should thieves, drug addicts, pedophiles, drug dealers, extortioners, prostitutes or any person of any kind of behavior have to live in the closet? We are what genetics have made us, right?

Go ahead and bash me for bringing it up...The Bible describes the end as a time when there would be wars, floods, famines, pestilence and so on. Does anyone not see that the natural disasters, civil unrest, and breakdown of morality is all indicitive of what the Bible describes as the "Time of the End?"

Luke 17:28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. "

hawkeye wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:41 PM:

" Twocents: If someone is not comfortable with "that lifestyle", what does that mean? Nobody is forcing farmgirl to be homosexual or to participate in "that lifestyle". How does being homosexual affect anyone else negatively? Sure she's entitled to her opinion, but why make insulting comments about homosexuality? I doubt this ruling will hurt farmgirl. Only if she lets it hurt her. I'd like to see somebody comment on how this ruling will hurt them personally and why two people who are devoted to each other should not be allowed to be together. "

pat wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:42 PM:

" Two Cents, you seem to be leaving out one little detail. Banning same sex marriages goes well beyond someone being entitled to their opinion. It is forcing their (religious) beliefs into law at the detriment to those who feel differently. I really don’t care how you feel about same sex marriages, it is your right to think whatever you want. But when you start taking civil liberties away from people because of those beliefs, then you have crossed the line. "

FaithNHope wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:43 PM:

" While I respect the need for us all to be loved and cherished, the Bible is the most powerful example of love as shown to us through our Lord Jesus Christ.

While I honestly do try to remain free of judgment to those who are lesbian or gay, I am reminded that the Bible tells us that in the last days there will be man on man, woman on woman, and that these relationships are wrong.

It's disheartening to know that allowing gays to marry is what our society has been reduced to. We truly are living in the end times and today's events are proving it.

It's time Americans thought more about the Bible and less about what's in their pants and their lusting minds.

I pray that the Lord has mercy on all of us. This may be a joyful day for all of you, but for many of us it is a day of mourning because our country is dying slowly. Our morals are gone. Our credibility has been negated. Get back to the Bible people. Get to know your Jesus and He will give you more love than you can ever know in a same-sex partner. "

Common Sense wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:45 PM:

" I could care less about what people do in their bedroom. I sincerely wish people happiness in pursuit of their endeavors.

However, my problem with this whole issue is that the concept of "marriage" is being used to blur the line between hetero and homo, rather than dealing with the new concept on its own merits. Seems a bit dishonest...and since this does affect society as a whole, I suspect there will likely be unforeseen consequences. "

just sayin wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:57 PM:

" I'm very happy for all the couples and excited to be part of history in the making. I know where I was when man walked on the moon, I know where I was when a woman made a viable run for the Presidency and I'll remember the feeling when specific civil rights were extended to those who previously didn't have them.
I'm hetero and married, and am absolutely certain that homosexuality is as normal as any other trait that occurs in nature. Typical? No, but certainly common and natural.
I also have empathy and compassion for those who believe otherwise. Years of training is difficult to overcome. I sincerely wish you the joy of truly embracing all of humanity, not just those who conform to your beliefs.
Congratulations to all the couples, and peace and tolerance to those who are uncomfortable today. "

Jenn wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:58 PM:

" I want to say congrats to all the couples that now can be married and celebrate their love for one another! It is a very joyful occasion. I hope that when November comes around, the states constitution is not changed and gay marriage is upheld. Congrats and good luck to all that have been married already or are to be married now :) "

Farmgirl wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:00 PM:

" I believe homosexuality is a choice and not the correct choice. My soul is not bitter - I just believe it is wrong for 2 women or 2 men to get married. And I will get bashed for it in this anything goes society. That is what liberals do to people with conservative ideas - they immediately put them down and call them names. I am quite used to it. Being exposed to open homosexuality l leads to confusion in young children who should not have this foisted on them. I have seen it happen in several of my daughter's friends who have same sex parents. I think it was a blessing that these people took in children who needed a family, but believe me, it has a negative effect on the emotions of the children. It is not the same thing as racism - it is a chosen lifestyle where as skin color is not changable. There have been many articles written by formerly gay people who stated it was a choice and not the best one. So bash away as America slips into further moral degenercy. (Thanks for your support, Two Cents!) "

psychochik wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:04 PM:

" Without quoting the bible, which is just a book, can someone tell me exactly why being homosexual is wrong ??

Seperate church and state. Just because you dont believe it to be morally right doesnt mean it isnt to someone else.

Its not an illegal practice so spare me the comparison to pedophiles cuz that seems to be what a lot of people like to compare homosexuals as.

So, what say you Napa ?? Can you give me a valid arguement that does not include the bible ?? "

just sayin wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:08 PM:

" Vercingetorex: You asked why all the "hatred" toward polygamists. There is a big difference between two consenting adults wishing to be joined together for life, and an underage female being forced to marry an adult male.

That's from a legal perspective.

From a social perspective, it is no secret that many polygamist families rely on social services and welfare, and the women are encouraged to lie about their marital status in order to quality for benefits as a single parent.

From a moral perspective, I don't feel the need to pass judgment. When and if polygamist marriages are always between consenting adults, they can have as many spouses as they can afford, in my view. The problem is very few polygamists can afford their huge families.

Anyway, you asked about the difference. That's it, as I see it. "

Mr. Burns wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:31 PM:

" How can the intolerant preach about morals? It's such hypocrisy. On a different note, I'm sorry to see GetReal seems to be one step away from walking the streets with a sign proclaiming "The End is Near!" "

Two Cents wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:35 PM:

" To Pat and Hawkeye... Pat, again, that is the way YOU feel about the issue.. not everyone else does. So my point was not about taking sides, it was simply to say that people should be able to have their opinion and voice it without other people telling them they're invalid or archaic.
Hawkeye, I think its pretty obvious what "that lifestyle" refers to. At the risk of being redundant, I'll just ask you to re-read the post of "JustMy$.02", because I couldnt have said it better myself. BRILLIANT post, AMEN! "

Paddy wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:40 PM:

" It's a sad day in America. I'm sure polygamy isn't too far behind. Why bother calling it marriage at all? Why not just eliminate divorce? Why can't two consenting adults decide to tear a family apart without having to go through divorce procedings?
This is about the rights of consenting adults. Don't stop with gay marriage. Abolish the rules completely because that is where it's ultimately going to go. Everyone has their own agenda. Religion and human evolution seem to have little meaning anymore. "

sickothis wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:52 PM:

" Oh bull Paddy. People have been getting married in Massachusetts for years and it hasn't affected you at all. "

Sharon wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:56 PM:

" people, people, people....Remember that church and state are required to be kept seperate. This is the primary principle our country was built on to prevent persicusion of those with different religious views. So keeping the seperation factor in mind the county, a government agency issues the marriage licences. Because a goverment agency is involved, the Bible can not be a factor here. Now accept that because the government is issuing these documents they can not violate the principle rights of individuals by allowing the Bible to say who can and can not marry. I also accept that, regardless of my beliefs, everyone is entitled to their happiness. I also feel that my marriage of 17 years to my wonderful husband is such a blessing that it would be a shame if two consenting adults, as devoted as we are, regardless of race, religion, or sexual preference, could not be married and share all aspects of their lives. I do know Carol, and I know she is devoted to her partner just as I am devoted to my husband. As for the possibility of this causing problems for "traditional" marriages, that could only happen if your "traditional" marriage is lived in someone elses bedroom, then it should fail. My marriage is dependant only on the actions of my husband and myself. No one elses actions can touch any marriage unless you let it. "

Paddy wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:58 PM:

" After today, I'm looking forward to the supreme court ruling allowing me to blow my brains out legally.

Yuck!! "

winemd wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:10 PM:

" Comparing all polygamists to forcing underage girls to marry an older man is not that different an argument from comparing all homosexuals to pedophiles. "

sickothis wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:17 PM:

" Amen - derived from Amen-Ra, Egyptian King of Gods and meaning "that which cannot be seen," and also a Pharaoh (Amenemhat). "

JustMy$.02 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:24 PM:

" Ok pyschochik Ill play along.
Without quoting the bible, which is just a book, can someone tell me exactly why being homosexual is wrong ??
-- There is no human procreation whitin the homosexual community. If the entire planet chose to be gay the earths population would be gone in 1 generation. It is biolocically wrong!

Seperate church and state. Just because you dont believe it to be morally right doesnt mean it isnt to someone else.
-- There are many forms of perversion that someone would consider morally acceptable. Sadly thats a floating scale . Im sure pyscochik there is something out in the world that two consenting adults are doing right now that you find disturbing, would you want that to become socially acceptable? Talked about to your children in a classroom?

Its not an illegal practice so spare me the comparison to pedophiles cuz that seems to be what a lot of people like to compare homosexuals as.
-- What is illegal vs. legal? Isnt that the definition of what society considers acceptable? We in America dont consider any form of murder to be socially acceptable (illegal) but there are countries and societies that do accept some forms of murder as acceptable (them call them honor killings). Where do we draw the line? Seems Californians have already drawn the line on the gay marriage issue, and will draw it again this November.

So, what say you Napa ?? Can you give me a valid arguement that does not include the bible ?? "
-- I dont believe I didnt mentioned the bible once, Doh! just did.
:) "

hawkeye wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:26 PM:

" What ever happened to separation of church and state? The issue here is that someone, the bible, preacher, parents or all of the above, taught us at some age that homosexuality is wrong. Based on what? Just because they don't like it? Everyone is entitled to their opinions and so am I. If you don't like it, fine. Bash it all you want. But don't impose your religious beliefs on others who may not be of your religion and or stance on the issue and try to keep them from getting married if they want to. You ask any gay man or woman and they will tell you it's not a choice. I didn't choose to be hetero, but I'am. Approx. 10% of the population is gay. So those of you who are against homosexuality, what do you suggest we do with those 10%? Offer counseling. How many counseling clinics for gays have you heard of? None. Why? Because being gay hurts nobody and it's not a psychological disorder. If it was a psychological disorder, doctors would be trying to develop drugs for homosexuality. Sounds silly doesn't it? That's because it is. It only hurts people when other people try to oppress them. It's none of your business if two people of the same sex love each other. Let em be. Still, nobody has given me a valid reason why two people of the same sex shouldn't love each other. It's their right and you have no right to take that away from them. Just as nobody can take your right away for believing what you will. I welcome this new ruling. "

funnyme wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:29 PM:

" NValleygirl ,
You seemed to be very confused about all of the "opposition" statements. Let me attempt at sheding some light from MY PERSPECTIVE (yes, that's right, believe it or not, the opposition has valid points too).
A marriage is between a man and a woman with the intention of procreation (1 man + 1 woman = baby), and to raise a family. Cromosomes Y and X play very important roles in the upbringing of children and the concept of FAMILY in our society from the point of view (research has been done in this topic. Really) that men and women are DIFFERENT and it is precisely these differences what is needed to mantain a healthy society...
Now, they obviously can't procreate because same sex doesn't make babies...why call it marriage?
These homosexual people who want the same rights as heterosexual married couples, should have them, but please don't call it marriage because it is not!

As far as how you choose to raise your children, time will show you wisdom. You dont' lead your life based on "feelings" only, that's for animals. "

hawkeye wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:29 PM:

" I encourage someone who is gay to write in. I'd love to hear their response to these posts. "

mamyt wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:40 PM:

" Oh and lets not forget there was a time when Blacks could not marry at all. Black men were not allowed to marry black women. As a country we continue to evolve (however slowly) to a higher understanding of life and love. This change in the law simply reflects the next step in the journey. "

reason-ator wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:40 PM:

" When 'marriage' was 'invented', it was a religious institution.

Now, the government sometimes can't seem to separate Church and State anymore. It's odd that many of the people who scream when the government DOESN'T insist on a separation of Church and State are now applauding the government getting involved in religious affairs. "

bloodagar wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:43 PM:

" From what I understand this court has six Republicans and to one Democrat sitting on the bench and they are considered to be "cautious and moderately conservative".

This is about law not religion.

To quote Jefferson:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." "

crusherfan wrote on Jun 17, 2008 5:01 PM:

" I give it 6 months.Will this create a new column titled "Gay Marriage Dissoluions" and new statistics for Gay Divorces? "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Jun 17, 2008 5:07 PM:

" For all you Bible thumpers and quoters out there, the end of the world sure is taking a long time! Remember the Romans from a couple thousand years ago? You know, the Romans. The people who conquered everything in sight with brutal wars, raping women, murdering the children of enemies, nailing those to a cross who would have different religious beliefs, leaving surviving enemies behind to starve. The Romans also allowed and encouraged relationships between the same sex. And the Greeks, with an island called "Lesbos". Where did you think the word "lesbian" came from? These societies were called "the beginning of Western civilization". Homosexuality, war, famine, pestilence, etc., all of it has been going on for thousands of years and the human race is still proliferating. Gimme a Bible quote to explain that. Please. Something like Book Of Nonsense, 7:14, "God shall destroy the deviance of mankind when he's good and ready, and not a moment sooner." "

workerbee wrote on Jun 17, 2008 5:33 PM:

" The last time we combined church and state people were burned at the stake. The bible also says adulterers and children who speak against the family should be stoned to death, we going to do that one too? It's still done in some cultures who think THEY have the right answer. If the bible or the koran is really the last word on every subject we better start collecting the woodpiles and stones, people. And which book you gonna choose? Aphrodite and Zeus are in the past now, it will just take a little longer for some people to open up their minds. There are some animals that indulge in homosexual behavior as well, they are are gonna be hard to catch for the pyre. Congratulations all you humans out there of all persuasions, enjoy your lives, that's really all we get. May no one drag you down to their own level of moral decrepitude and call it the one true way. Did anyone here Obama's speech on religion? One of the finest I've heard, and from a christian, no less. This is coming from a fan of Richard Dawkins.Check it out on YouTube. "

iaiguy wrote on Jun 17, 2008 5:38 PM:

" A question for those who make the marriage = procreation argument: Are you seriously telling us that older heterosexual couples, i.e. beyond the possibility of procreating, should not be allowed to marry? Get real. Marriage is about a commitment to share all the joys and troubles of life with another human being because you love them deeply. In the 21st century that is no longer limited by gender. That's progress (I almost said "evolution", but let's not go there). Congratulations to all the loving couples who get to legally celebrate their love and devotion just like everyone else! "

bloodagar wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:02 PM:

" Don't dig Jefferson? Here you go...

"Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?" Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner on the Ten Commandments ruling, June 27, 2005

MarshaMarsh:
hahahaha, ROMANS! that is excellent...also taking into consideration they are the ones that compiled the books of the bible, after editing the crap out of them for THEIR political gain!!! "

shareathought wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:04 PM:

" If one were to live by the bible one would beleive that they were NOT to judge others but to leave the judging to "God".

I agree with the idea that this is all about law and not about religion.

Governmental law should have allowed civil unions years ago so, that all committed spouses could benefit from legal partnerships.

Churches or spiritual organizations have the choice of whether or not to bless marriages. "

hawkeye wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:04 PM:

" Funnyme writes, "A marriage is between a man and a woman with the intention of procreation (1 man + 1 woman = baby), and to raise a family." Interesting definition! My wife and I have decided not to have kids. Are we committing some moral atrocity? In light of overpopulation, rising cost of living, the inability to conceive or otherwise, more couples are making the same decision. Trying to apply very old rules to a modern world does not work so well. Our society has largely evolved past segregation and has come a long way in accepting those who are different. Although there are clearly still those who aren't open minded. The church (or anyone else) has absolutely no business telling anybody who they can or can't love. Most gays and lesbians will tell you that their orientation is NOT a choice. The latest science also supports that. That being said, the homosexual community, blacks, whites, latino, asian, christian, catholic, athiest and on and on, deserve the best in life as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. "

Two Cents wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:05 PM:

" crusherfan.... too funny! Yes, divorce lawyers must be smiling and rubbing their hands together on this one!! If 50% of marriages end in divorce, imagine all the new $$ they'll be raking in now... with gay marriage comes gay divorce and all the fighting and court/attys costs that go along with it.
Quick... someone call the TV networks... can't you just picture a Jerry Springer type Gay Divorce court show!! Imagine the ratings!! "

NVBlogger wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:40 PM:

" Marsha - Now that is funny!

I must say my favorite posting is Bloodagers....

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness-Lev. 15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination-Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

The Bible is open to interpretation! Not that this should be a religious issue.

Congratulations Deb & Carol and the rest of the newlyweds! "

Dirty Napkin wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:37 PM:

" Free at last! Congrats to the newly weds! "

justmyopinion wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:52 PM:

" Share a thought - Your comment "Churches or spiritual organizations have the choice of whether or not to bless marriages. " addresses my concern about same sex marriage.

I don't have a problem with equal rights and responsibilities under a civil contract, but marriage to me has religious significance. I think that civil unions are often the more appropriate legal institution, regardless of the gender of the couple involved.

Leave "marriage" for church services and civil unions for all others. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:59 PM:

" cfpotter, I'm sure Farmgirl has compassion to those who have no choice in their orientation, in the same manner that we have compassion for those who are born cripple. However, cripple people don't insist on running in foot races, they acknowledge their limitations. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:02 PM:

" Vinolady, there's nothing wrong with loving another human being. But that doesn't give you the right to change the age-old definition of marriage. "

Justmy$.02 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:05 PM:

" MarshaMarsha just remember that those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those empires you mentioned are now gone because they let thier morales become way to liberal and it destroyed them. They may be considered the begining of western civilization, but America now sits on the pinicle of that!
And while acceptance of gay marriage my not be the ultimate downfall of American society it most certainly is a step in that direction! "

John Richards wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:14 PM:

" All those who are applauding gay 'marriage' will have a difficult time finding a logical reason to continue opposing polygamous marriage. The people involved love each other, right? The barn door is now wide open to anything goes... "

Born In Napa wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:21 PM:

" Look at all the happy faces!
Bless you all. "

pernodboi wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:42 PM:

" Woo Hoo! Congrats Carol and Deb!!

While I have never wanted to marry, this decision makes me feel like I am a part of society and not a sexual minority.

Very hard to explain in words - but it makes me feel very good about my City, County and State.

I imagine this is a little like it felt when the Jim Crowe laws were overturned (for interacial couples). Please note I said a little - maybe even a very little bit.

Sooooo.... Does this mean same sex couples can get benefits from companies that only give bene's to spouses? How about imigration... Can I marry a hot French wine maker, then have him apply for a US citizenship?

Well.... that last one is just silly. I would marry said hot french dude and then move to France (better exchange rates)!

Love and hugs to all! No hate!! Remeber that for every marriage liscense - $75 to the city!!!

Tony "

John Richards wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:42 PM:

" psychochik, you wanted a valid reason why homosexuality is wrong, without quoting from the Bible. How about this:

1. We know that a small percentage of people are born with defective genes, sometimes resulting in conditions like hemophilia, a rare blood disorder. The best information we have about homosexuality suggests that about 5% of all people are born with a tendency to acquire full symptoms of this condition later in life. Why is there this parallel between homosexuality and genetic disorders?

2. Mother Nature designed the two genders to have complementary genitals. If this has no meaning for you, perhaps a course in Human Physiology 101 will help.

3. We know that if the incidence of homosexuality approached 100%, the human race would die out. We also know that if the incidence of homosexuality approaches zero percent (perhaps through in utero testing and selection), nothing bad will happen.

Put all those facts together, and what do you get? "

pernodboi wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:46 PM:

" John Richards - Good point sir!

Multi partner relationships are not limited to Mormons either. There are numerouse cultures that do recognize multiple wives. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:07 PM:

" The fact that some heterosexual couples choose not to (or are unable to) have children, does not negate the primary and historic reason for the institution of marriage, to provide a stable environment for raising offspring. Exceptions don't make or break the rule. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:03 PM:

" Historically, in some cultures marriage was a means of insuring that property could be safely passed on to the next generation. In many cultures, marriage is a business deal between families. In the United States, marriage is a civil contract between consenting adults. Religious marriage ceremonies have nothing to do with government. Our Constitution is a document worthy of respect. The California Supreme Court has made a wise decision by allowing all adults to enjoy the equal benefits and responsibilities associated with civil marriage. "

xmrs09 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:32 PM:

" Paddy: It would be considered illegal to "blow your brains out" but look on the bright side, you wouldn't be prosecuted for it...unless, as I suspect, you believe in what the Bible teaches and then you'd have to face your maker. Wouldn't it just be easier to go on enjoying your own life and not worrying about what others are doing? "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:38 PM:

" John Richards, I'll take on those facts:

1: The term "normal" is derived from the majority. Anything different than the majority is labeled a "disorder". This doesn't always mean it's wrong or damaged, just different. Hemophilia and homesexuality are not the majority, and that is their parallel.

2: Mother Nature designed complimentary genitals for the simple reason of reproduction so a species can survive. It has nothing to do with right or wrong. A human hand is VERY complimentary to genitals. Are you against that too???

3: Evolution is far more intelligent that either of us, and if homosexuality were at 100% then Mother Nature would find a way to make more humans. Fish never have sex their entire lives, and yet they fill the oceans. "

JMB wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:39 PM:

" Hawkeye, exactly. I did not choose my orientation as hetero, it's who I am. My gay friends are just that...who they are. I can't wait until they can feel the joy of being married in the eyes of the law, not dictated by religion. They are wonderful law-abiding citizens who want to adopt a child and will be wonderful parents. And you know, I don't care nor want to know what they do in their bedrooms, I couldn't care less! I don't even want to know what my hetero friends do in their bedrooms! It boils down to love, and goodness knows there's a shortage of love in this world. Please, think about it. Two adults love each other, does it really matter if it's FF, MM, or MF? "

Raven wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:51 PM:

" If these are the best arguments that those opposed to same-sex marriage can muster, then November's ballot initiative is doomed to failure. But I fear as the months go by the vitriol will become more strident.
For me, it boils down to this ... allowing any two adults to marry cannot destroy, tear down or otherwise reduce the bonds between myself and my partner. Only the two of us can allow that to happen. So I say to all those newlyweds, good luck. "

entity wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:02 AM:

" I vote for the abolition of marriage as a state institution, period, and the enstatement of "civil contract" law, conferring certain tax and property-sharing benefits and responsibilities between two consenting adult parties regardless of gender or religion.

If you want to be "married", consult with a designated representative of your preferred religious institution and he/she can provide a church-backed ceremony and/or certificate per church or institutional policy, for your and their records. It confers no additional benefit on a federal, state, or local level, but carries with it as much spiritual weight as you and your chosen religious institution may grant it.

Barring that, hooray for gay marriage!

How's them apples? "

napan79 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:10 AM:

" Marriage does not have anything to do with religion it is what you want to believe. I am heterosexual and I am getting married but I don't want anything that has religion in it to be in my ceremony. That is my right just as you may want religion in your wedding. Gays have the choice to marry and it should not be up to the government or religion who marries. "

MOM67 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:29 AM:

" CONGRATS TO ALL WHO MARRIED TODAY AND GOD BLESS US ALL ONE AND ALL!!!!GAY OR STRAIGHT WE ARE GODS CHILDREN!!!SO MUCH I WANT TO SAY BUT CANT BECAUSE IM NOT GAY BUT I LOVE LIFE AND ALL LIFE HAS TO OFFER THANK YOU GOD FOR MY GAY BROTHER!!!!! "

nwnapan wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:03 AM:

" Sexual orientation is simply the wrong determinate for marriage. It should be based on looks solely. There's nothing worse than seeing two ugly people kiss. I don't want to see two butch lesbians or two bear gays kiss any more than I want to see the fat straight guy kiss his obese wife. I want to see HOT people making out! I mean let's get real. At the end of the day if marriage is about having kids then the state should mandate an aesthetic threshold that you must pass before you marriage license will be granted. I'm tired of seeing ugly kids everywhere. Let's get our priorities straight people! "

HOGGDA wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:15 AM:

" How come they keep ramming this down are throats! "

TINAMAC wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:27 AM:

" I agree that we have the right to the pursuit of happiness regardless of sexual orientation ... I just hope in the rush to get married these people remember PRE NUP... whats good for hetero unions is good these unions as well... the good, the bad, and the UGLY. "

GetReal! wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:02 AM:

" woo hoo! Party on areyouserious! Come on sing with me: Living easy, livin' free
Season ticket, on a one - way ride
Asking nothing, leave me be
Taking everything in my stride
Don't need reason, don't need rhyme
Ain't nothing I would rather do
Going down, party time
My friends are gonna be there too

I'm on the highway to hell "

Paddy wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:29 AM:

" This is really a PG-13 rated commentary on what's on peoples minds regarding this topic. Imagine if the commentator really allowed people to speak their minds... I find it extremely offensive to be blasted with the sights and sounds of a modern Sodom and Gomorrah. "

auntielmo wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:32 AM:

" Congrat's Carol & Deb!! And Congrat's to all the couples. I am happy for all of you. "

mamyt wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:45 AM:

" The astonishing part of all this is that some where down the line marriage became the prize? Why is it that gay men are begging to get married and straight men do everything they can to avoid it???

As for the divorce rate being 50% lets not forget those statistics do not represent what they seem to represent. There are many people who have been married and divorced repeatedly. I would like to see the stats on how many first time marriages end in divorce. "

savenapa wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:10 AM:

" I agree with you Paddy. This is a very sad day indeed. My kids are now the victoms of this indoctrination. John Tutor could have waited for the November turnout, especially since Napa County was a prop 22 passing county. It is unconstitutional for the court to legislate from the bench. Everyone that has been squelched in this forum needs to show up in Nov. "

coigue wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:35 AM:

" Your love makes our community stronger. You deserve this, and it is your natural right. Period.

Congratulations. "

bloodagar wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:38 AM:

" Wow...considering there is outrage and comment after comment voicing disapproval...THERE WAS ONE, I REPEAT, ONE PROTESTER. To this one protester, Tom, at least you are brave enough to show your face to the world when it counts.

Congratulations to all the newlyweds! Kim and Karin....21 years? Wow, special congrats to you two! "

fishify wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:48 AM:

" To all you naysayers I say this:
Love wins over hate every time.

To all the newlyweds I say congratulations!

I too will soon take advantage of this newly granted civil right.

For me, 40 years of being a second class citizen ends on September 21, 2008, when me and my partner of 13 years finally tie the knot. "

coigue wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:49 AM:

" Dear old Napa Guy.

I teach my kids that love and responsibility to those you love and to your community is right; exclusion and hate are wrong. Those are clearly not your morals, but they are indeed morals that I try to live up to as wholeheartedly as anyone. "

mominapa wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:53 AM:

" I have read every comment posted here to date. Diversity certainly exists in Napa, doesn't it? Several sides have been heard here. I am not going to say anyone is wrong or right, bad or good, sick or well. The best blog here is by NVBlogger. Couldn't have said it better myself, but I sure wish I had. My ideas on love and marriage are simple. I don't care who you love as long as you love and I don't care who you marry or even if you marry. If you want to, go for it, but keep your promises to each other. Marriages break down because promises are broken. If you love someone enough to make promises, you love them enough to keep them. Think long and hard as to whether this is best for you and your relationship. I am not gay, but my relationship would be totally ruined by marriage... so, you see, it isn't for everyone, but not because of sexual orientation.

Oh, and another thing. Does anyone here have spell check? It shouldn't surprise me since California's educational system suffers big time. "

debstallings wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:55 AM:

" I’m really sad that a day so joyous for our family caused unhappiness for others. Reading the blogs, I am struck by two thoughts - 1) why don't people use their real names? Perhaps it would make it harder to be so hateful and 2) I'm amazed at how many of the opinions I totally agree with - except for the obviously irrational who aren't really interested in constructive commentary, just vitriolic ramblings. For our part, Carol and I never cared if it was called "marriage." Call it civil unions or domestic partnerships, so long as it is called the same thing for all couples, regardless of gender. Everyone already knows that separate but equal just doesn't work. All we’ve ever wanted is for our relationship, property and family to be subject to the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as all legal relationships. We agree that the civil contract of marriage is completely different than the religious ceremonies performed in churches and fully support the rights of those congregations to decide who meets the standards to be married under the covenants of their religion. But that's different than the civil contract of marriage offered by the government. We believe, as does the Supreme Court, that civil marriage is about two consenting adults promising to love, honor and protect one another. What can be wrong with that? As of today - LOVE PREVAILS! We wish each of you the peace and happiness we've been blessed with, and hope that soon we can all work together on issues of real concern for our community and our world - war, our economy, people left homeless by storms and fire... why waste time on issues that divide us when together we can do some good? In peace, Deb and Carol "

bloodagar wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:57 AM:

" Hey Farmgirl~Am I a liberal Democrat? Wow, you seem to have your finger on the pulse of conservative Republican's don't you? Please don't speak for the Republican's...you are embarrassing the majority of us.
Keep your quasi-religious propoganda to yourself and don't associate it with politics. This issue goes beyond party lines.

By the way, I am a current Army Wife...what exactly do the troops need?
Other than the TRUTH.

marriage Look up marriage at Dictionary.com
1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry).

"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part." [G.B. Shaw]

marry (v.) 1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor"). Said from 1530 of the priest, etc., who performs the rite.
marry (interj.)
a common oath in the Middle Ages, c.1350, now obsolete, a corruption of the name of the Virgin Mary.

ETYMOLOGY "

fishify wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:03 AM:

" The bible says:
"Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." -- Leviticus 19:19
Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

If god says no to homosexuality AND to shellfish, how come no one is protesting outside Red Lobster? "

eas001 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:04 AM:

" nwnapan - I agree, if you are going to get it on - let's make sure you are aesthetically pleasing!

Oh, didn't most of the homosexuals come from heterosexual couples? Maybe the reverse will happen??? "

eas wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:40 AM:

" MarshaMarsha - You brought up excellent points!! "

NVR Moderator wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:40 AM:

" Our apologies, a few posts that should have been deleted ended up in this batch of story comments.
Those comments have been deleted, along with ones from people replying to those comments.
--Dan "

Sickothis wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:47 AM:

" 1. Marriage is a State issued License. Following John Richards' logic, should the State not issue a drivers license to hemophiliacs? Of course not, that would be DISCRIMINATION.

2. There is homosexuality in every species on Earth, and humans are the only ones that DISCRIMINATE based on it.

3. Should we call marriages between black and white people "interracial domestic partners?"

4. The same arguments were made when there were black and white water fountains; it's all the same water, separate but equal. Equals segregation and discrimination. "

JustMy$.02 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:59 AM:

" debstallings I have a couple of questions for you out of curiosity.
What changes in your life will happen with this marraige?
Will you (or your partner) recieve work related benifits you dont currently have?
Will there be rights to property you own jointly (or not) that you dont currently have?
Will there be added responsibilities because of this marriage?
Do you have childeren and if so, what changes in rights and responsibilities have come with that?
How will your tax situation change?

These are honest questions I dont have an answer for.
Thanks for you time if you choose to answer them.
And congradulations, honestly.
:) "

moongirl512 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:24 AM:

" Woah! lots of people wasting their time on here... why cant we all worry about something more serious??? "

Rich wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:27 AM:

" NVR Moderator, this topic is a very emotional one for both sides and should be allowed to continue with both sides being heard
To selectively decide who can be heard is wrong, delete the personal attack posts and let the rest be. "

Rich wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:30 AM:

" Because moongirl512, this is VERY serious to many of us.
When the courts over rule the voters bad thing will follow. "

Farmgirl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:51 AM:

" Bloodagar - I have not mentioned political party, religious beliefs or any such in my blogs. I have stated what I think and see in our nation. I commented on liberal and conservative values - I do not believe they have a political party. And please thank your husband for serving our country and thank you for all you have to do as a military wife. "

NVR Moderator wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:51 AM:

" Rich:
The community debate is going on. Comment guideline No. 3, however, states in part... "refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments..."
These are the guidelines for commenters, and for moderators as well.
Thanks
--Dan
There is also a Reader Forum on this issue if you wish to take the debate to that forum. You can access the Reader Forum by clicking the link near the top of this article "

funnyme wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:59 AM:

" Attention all "Open Minded"!!!! Warning!!!
Too much open mind let the brains fall out... "

yes wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:54 PM:

" WOW THIS IS WONDERFUL!!!!! I AM SO HAPPY AND EXCITED ABOUT THIS! CONGRATS TO ALL THE NEWLY WEDS! :) IM SURE YA'LL WILL PROBABLY LAST TOGETHER A LOT LONGER THAN US "NORMAL" STRAIGHT COUPLES! AND I PUT NORMAL IN QUOTATION MARKS BECASUSE I FIND NOTHING ABOUT GAYS AND LESBIANS THAT MAKES YOU GUYS NOT "NORMAL" PEOPLE THAT THINK THAT ARE JUST AFFRAID OF CHANGE AND HAPPINESS!!!!!!! GET MARRIED AND LIVE YOUR LIVES HAPPILY EVER AFTER LIKE GOD WOULD LIKE. REMEMBER GOD WANTS EVERYONE TO BE HAPPY AND EVERYONE IS EQUAL IN HIS EYES WEATHER YOUR GAY. LEZ, OR STRAIGHT. WHATEVER!!!!! AND DONT WORRY IF THEY TRY TO TAKE THE LAW AWAY IT'LL JUST GO TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THEY WILL FIND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH IT AND IT'LL BE UP IN NO TIME AGAIN. AND YES IT IS JUST LIKE BACK WHEN BLACKS COULD NOT MARRY WHITES! ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? LIVE LOVE LAUGH...... CONGRATS TO ALL YA'LL WOOOO HOOOO "

GetReal! wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:00 PM:

" This is not normal, it is not moral. The majority don't want their children to be taught; by neighbors, school, or in public that it is normal to be attracted to the same sex. I'm just wondering what will become of the pajama parties and sleepovers. Little Johnny can no longer have a "normal" pal relationship with Mikey, go skinny dipping or anything else. Why? Because we have confused their little minds into believing that it is normal to be attracted to the same sex. Now when twelve year old Johnny gets his "normal" woody, he suspects he is attracted to Mikey? What a bunch of bs we are placing on the shoulders of our children.

You want to feed your own lusts, go ahead. What you do behind your own closed doors is not my business. When the state sides with you and says now sex education to our children has to show heterosexualism as an equivalent to homosexualism, they and you have gone to far!

Come on Dan lets see you take a stand! "

NValleygirl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:24 PM:

" Getreal!: So are you telling me that people didn't start to "be" gay until the Supremem Court overturned Prop 22? Newsflash, homosexuality has been around since at least Ancient Greece.

I think it is funny that you assume that people who are homosexual go around and try to recruit members like the Army. Do you honestly think that every single homosexual male is attracted to every single male that walks by him? Are you attracted to every single member of the opposite sex you see on a daily basis?

You don't have to understand or even like what goes on in their relationships behind closed doors, it really is none of your business anyways. Just like I don't care to know what goes on in your bedroom. These relationships aren't just about "sex" as you and others would like to portray them. Do you really think the bond that held the two women together who were just married after 55 years of their relationship was lust?

It reminds me of chicken little running around screaming that the sky is falling. Just because people are allowed to be married doesn't mean now teachers are going to teach kids how to be gay, just like they do not teach kids to be heterosexual. It is beyond ridiculous. No one is placing anything on any childs shoulders, except for those who are unnecessarily freaking out because they are afraid of what they don't understand.

Are you suggesting that since homosexuals are allowed to marry that now all children will be worried that they are gay? So I guess I should worry that everytime I hug one of my girlfriends that maybe I am a lesbian, right? "

NValleygirl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:25 PM:

" funnyme: Quoting from a bumper sticker, how profound. "

funnyme wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:28 PM:

" As long as you don't find it profound, it makes all the sense even more. "

matt@newspeak wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:42 PM:

" Carol & Deb- I would be hard pressed to think of two more deserving people who have clearly expressed their commitment to each other and to their community as you both have.

Congratulations on this important day in your lives, we are very happy for you both.

-Matt Pope "

GetReal! wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:49 PM:

" Wake up NValleygirl! Try reading my post before you comment. I said it is none of my business what goes on behind closed doors. What is my business is what the school system is teaching my children. It is not acceptable that the courts have approved the indoctrination to our "children" that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality. In essence that is what this gay marriage thing is all about. This has nothing to do with how long this behavior has been going on, we all know that it dates back at least as far as Sodom and Gomorrah.

You could have your lesbian relationship before (the new gay marriage approval) and you and I know perfectly well that it is not what either God or nature intended for human beings. Someone in favor of gay marriage on this forum compares humans to animals. For your information we are not just animals that don't know right from wrong; animals also kill with no consequences but an occasional full stomach, they deficate whenever and wherever they please, and the majority have a new partner every year or whatever their reproductive cycle may be. Yeah, I want to be compared with an animal.

I don't care if it is continued short term relationships you want or if you are looking for a long term relationship, that's great. If you want to teach my children that they deficating on the table is just as acceptable as using the toilet, killing is just as acceptable as getting along, and so forth, I must disagree. "

NValleygirl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:49 PM:

" funnyme: Well I just can't wait to see what other nuggets of wisdom you come across on your commute. *fingers crossed* "

debstallings wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:14 PM:

" Hi .02 Cents! I sense that your questions and congratulations (thank you!) are sincere, so I'll answer as best I can. The first question is easiest, because for me the biggest change is that my loving, committed, relationship with Carol is no longer treated as “less worthy” others in the eyes of the law. The Supreme Court has said "your love is equal" as have so many people here in this community, so that's hugely affirming. Just as it will be when we stand before family and friends and legally become married. So for me, because in reality I'm just a girl who wants to marry the love of my life, perhaps the biggest changes are emotional.

Having said that, I know there are lots of other important reasons to fight this fight. The legal landscape here is still very fuzzy - and I'm no lawyer - so I can't answer your questions with authority, but… While here in California the former ‘domestic partnership agreement’ conferred many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, it held no weight anywhere else. When we left the state as domestic partners, we became legal strangers. In the event of an accident or illness, I could be denied the right to even visit Carol in the hospital. Hopefully, this is a step towards getting recognized on a federal level. Taxes - we already pay more and have to file married in CA and single on Federal. Carol and I don't have children, and I don't think there will be changes in our property rights - but I'm sure Mr. Tuteur will let us know if there are! Extra responsibilities? If we get divorced we have to go through the same misery as anyone else.

Peace, Deb and Carol "

stray wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:18 PM:

" This created an nightmare for HR departments. The state might recognize the marriage (until November comes around), but the federal government doesn't. People who are registered domestic partners and become married, lose their domestic partnerships. Which is setting people of for heartbreak. Also, COBRA insurance (which is Federal), does not recognize these marriages. Won't be able to claim children on taxes for Federal Income Tax (jointly anyway.) Also, some insurances (Blue Cross) won't recognize them, and so you won't be able to put your spouse on your insurance.

I guess it's a small victory, but it's not a lasting one IMO. This has a long way to go.

To those of you who are against Gay marriages from a Religious point of view, I completely understand and actually agree. From a political stand point - equality from all. There's a plan in motion here, and there's nothing you can do to prevent it.

What is Moral is as much as opinion as anything else. We all hold our own beliefs, and it's important to stand by our beliefs. What's most important to me is my soul, and I'll save judgement to the God I believe in. I'll continue to follow my own path, learn, and teach. Be not part of the world because the world is not part of you. ta-ta! "

NValleygirl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:22 PM:

" GetReal!: Unfortunately I did read your posts.

Maybe you should take a second and take it down a notch. End times, teachers teaching kid to be gay, sleepovers, kids deficating on tables, really?

Thanks for the biology lesson. Also unless you have met God, and had a sit down, you have no idea as to what he has intended for humanity. You are relying on a book, written by mortals and interpreted by mortals. I have a good feeling that God is way more tolerant than those here on Earth "following" his "teachings".

Disagree if you must, but based on your rants are you even sure about what you are disagreeing with? "

momtoo wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:23 PM:

" Congratulations to all the Newlyweds!!And a note to everyone else a'la Miss Manners: When someone tells you they are getting married or having a baby the correct response is "congratulations!" no matter what else you wish to say ....But I really mean it!:) "

mikek wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:49 PM:

" Rich wrote:
"When the courts over rule the voters bad thing will follow. "

Sorry Rich. That's the job of the courts to overturn bad laws. What would you say if voters suddenly decided to bring back slavery? "

Dwayne wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:40 PM:

" Congratulations to the NVR moderators for skewing the blog in favor of gays and gay marriages, by deleting strong opinions opposed to it. It is a dark day when we allow censorship to block the views of those who disagree. That is right out of the gay-agenda playbook. Beat them down until they submit to the normalcy of perversion.

There is a price to pay for silencing opposing opinions. "

NVBlogger wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:45 PM:

" Deb-
You have my heartfelt congratulations. Nice to read your post. Sorry you have to read some of the obnoxious posts on here. Scroll past them and know that there are a lot of people who are very happy for the giant step toward equality. "

Farmgirl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:08 PM:

" Some interesting ramifications - now when parents tell their children (this is free speech, boys and girls) that homosexual marriage may be allowed by law, but for moral or/and religious reasons they as a family do not believe it is right and little Johnny or Jane goes to school with this opinion, are we now going to charge small children whose parents are only trying to install their morals and values in their children (please note THEIR - not yours) with hate speech? People keep asking how this is going to affect me as a non homosexual person - I see this is one way it can affect a whole society especially conservative religious people. "

Explorer wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:13 PM:

" Congratulations to all the newlyweds. This ruling was long overdue.

Rich wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:30 AM:

" Because moongirl512, this is VERY serious to many of us.
When the courts over rule the voters bad thing will follow. "

But Rich, don't you see that it took the courts to stop discrimination against black people? Do you believe the courts were wrong there? Or is it only ok to discriminate against gay people? The truth we have learned from history is that many people are very willing to discriminate. It is the courts job to right this injustice as was done in this instance

Why is it so hard for people to learn from history that discrimination in any form is wrong?

When I was a child I had a friend who was from a very religious family. In high school he became very disillusioned with religion. One of his favorite sayings was the something like they left a couple words out of the bible when they said love thy neighbor. What they really meant was love thy neighbor - as long as they look and act like you.

I don't understand how a ruling that in no way diminishes the marriage of a man and a woman and will make millions of people happy in this country can be so divisive. "

orangeplow wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:20 PM:

" I like NValleygirl...smart, thoughtful and aggressive when appropriate. Keep it up. "

shareathought wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:22 PM:

" Karin Ashford and Kim Kocher, I am not sure if your bouquets turned out best or not but my question/s is...did you toss one/both for friends or family to catch?

Otherwise, congratulations to you two as well!

Deb, we don't use our real names 'cause we can use a pseudo-name, we don't want others to know what we really think or 'cause we are...
cowards, embarrassed, gut-less, hypocrites or...well, at least I am (or I can speak more of my truth incognito).

My biggest truth is that no matter what spiritual believes one may have, I believe that the GOD or gods that be would expect one to be true to their own spirit. I respect you and yours (your loved one) for living your truth. "

izzy wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:38 PM:

" It is a sad state of affairs when folks who disapprove of gay marriage can not speak out against it. Violation of free speech on the Napa forum........very sad.
It's also a sad state of affairs for Ca. and the nation! "

bloodagar wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:21 PM:

" Farmgirl~I reread the comments and could not find the comment to which I was referring. If I misunderstood a comment of yours or simply made an misguided assumption, I AM TRULY SORRY. I respect healthy debate and YOU (as well as others who disagree with the issue) MUST be heard. Debate and disagreements strengthens our community, and I firmly believe these conversations should not be whispered in the corners. So, for expressing your opinion, I thank you.

I still firmly believe in the checks and balances of the Supreme Court and the Separation of Church and State. *MUAH* "

Dwayne wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:45 PM:

" Yes, and wouldn't it be wonderful if we all embraced perversion....NOT....... "

Hear Ye wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:49 PM:

" Dwayne and Izzy-

The NVR has certain rules to comments. There is plenty of discussion going on from both sides of the fence in here but when people use this forum to personally attack and insult people in a hateful way that does nothing for anyone. This isn't a free speech issue in the slightest. You're more than welcome to start your own website and say anything you please "

camper77 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:16 PM:

" 120 comments on gay marriage, 4 on the murder trial. Yep, that's Napa.... "

crusherfan wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:03 PM:

" I still give it 6 months "

shareathought wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:06 PM:

" PS
j-m-o
It is a difficult distinction; depends how you look at it (political vs religous), how you feel personally (or what you were taught); is it you/who you know (are they related/denigrated as second class/walk in their shoes/confidant?). How you love. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:16 PM:

" "YES", are you serious to suggest that if gay marriage is shut down by the voters in November, it will be fixed by the US Supreme Court? First of all, I don't think it is appealable, and even if it is, the US Supreme Court is much more conservative than the California court. Should the proposition pass, the status of gays already 'married' will become a legal nightmare, the likes of which has never been seen before. You can thank the California Supreme Court for the resulting donnybrook, which arrogantly dismissed reasonable suggestions to stay the outcome of their ruling until November. "

deb sly wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:29 PM:

" I'm so happy for you guys. Congrats! from Tom and I both. You guys look great! and sooo happy. We share your joy. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:32 PM:

" Some here have suggested that it is cowardly to use a pseudonym or pen name. Fact is, some of the finest writers in history used a pen name, Mark Twain comes to mind. Sometimes they did so to avoid persecution for advocating unpopular ideas. Even today, those who express ideas that are not deemed "politically correct" by liberals often find themselves at the receiving end of slurs like 'bigot', 'homophobe', etc.
Perhaps my boss is not of the same political persuasion that I am, so prudence dictates that I use a pen name. "

kdbk wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:47 PM:

" Free speech, civil rights, freedom of choice. Truly wonderful things about our country. Indeed, they are rights we should all share.

So here goes. I can't relate to gay people at all. Being interested in the opposite sex just seems so natural. And so it is that for the overwhelming majority of humans that have ever existed throughout time, what gay men do with one another sexually is an extremely difficult concept to understand, let alone accept as decent behavior.

Anyway, to all the gay folks out there, I'm sure you're glad your parents were not gay. Right? "

bloodagar wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:50 PM:

" Farmgirl~I re-read the comments and could not find the comment to which I was referring. If I misunderstood a comment of yours or simply made an misguided assumption, I AM TRULY SORRY. I respect healthy debate and YOU (as well as others who disagree with the issue) MUST be heard. Debate and disagreements strengthens our community, and I firmly believe these conversations should not be whispered in the corners. So, for expressing your opinion, I thank you.

I still firmly believe in the checks and balances of the Supreme Court and the Separation of Church and State. *MUAH* "

izzy wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:10 PM:

" Hear Ye, you said:
"when people use this forum to personally attack and insult people in a hateful way that does nothing for anyone."

I did nothing of the sort and none of the above!!!! "

areyouserious wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:36 PM:

" I would sincerely like to thank the NVR moderator for filtering and removing my post. Thanks for taking away my freedom of speach. I would like a written email as to why my comment was so offensive.

And maybe an apology. "

ADark1 wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:51 AM:

" Congratulations Deb , Carol and the rest of the newlyweds or engaged!

That being said,

I really do NOT understand what the big fuss is about..Do those of you who oppose Homosexual liaisons and *Gasp* even marriage have any idea of what they have contributed to this society and even the world?

Google, famous gays ....When you find out people like Da Vinci, two Popes ( at least)and others were MAJOR contributers and some even changed the world for the better, I pray you will become more tolerant.

Again my congrats....and about those wedding invitations.. "

Rich wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:22 AM:

" Be patient, this will all be over in November and hopefully the courts will leave it alone this time.
Get out and vote people, take a stand for morality. "

cathyodom wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:47 AM:

" debstallings: Congratulations! Very nice and sweet video! And, yes, I use my real name, one of the rare people here, I don't hide behind a pseudo-name. Or, else, I'm not creative like "Mark Twain" or "John Richards" here to come up with something good. Where are our political bloggers, like Michael Haley or pink flamingo on this issue? Saw MarshaMarsha.... hopefully will see you guys tonight at bloggermania. "

Farmgirl wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:15 AM:

" bloodagar, No problem. I have been trying to present my opposition to homosexual marriage in a calm, non naming calling, non affiliated (not religious, not referring to political party, etc.) way, but apparently when I stated that there was a lot of name calling on the side of the pro homosexual crowd, I mentioned that and apparently was removed for that reason - but I did notice all the bible thumper, etc. comments were removed as well. Thanks for your return comment and all the best to your military family and again to all the family of military personnel who are defending us, please know you are deeply appreciated. "

izzy wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:46 AM:

" Sickothis....you are talking about apples and oranges here.....get real! "

napamomma wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:03 PM:

" Congratulations to all the couples out there who have wanted to be married and finally can!! May your love and legal marriage last for eternity!!! "

Farmgirl wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:18 PM:

" How are the public schools going to handle this? If a conservative family teaches THEIR children that the state allows homosexual marriage, but that our family does not believe it is moral - and children repeat this in school - as freedom of speech should allow them to express their viewpoint - is this considered "hate crime." People keep asking how this is going to affect anyone but the homosexual couples involved, but this would affect many conservative families who are trying to teach THEIR children THEIR values. As a analogy to this - it is not illegal for a 15 year old to have sex, but this family would not believe it to be moral and would teach their children that premarital sex is not moral, just as they believe homosexual marriage is not moral. Comments? "

NValleygirl wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:24 PM:

" Farmgirl: I never learned about marriage in school, my teachers never told me with whom I should sleep with. I guess I missed the part in school where the teacher told us who we should marry.

It is not the job of the school, nor has it ever been to teach children about sexuality. Sex ed teaches children about their body parts, and how children are made. It isn't a crash course on how to hook up or with whom you should hook up with. So why are you now trying to put the unecessary burden on teacher to teach children the morals they should be receiving at home? Homosexuality was around and people were open about it when I was a student, even in elementary school and it wasn't taught to us. I don't think that it became part of the ciriculum in Mass. when they allowed gay marriages, so now why does sexuality belong in a classroom lesson since gays can marry in CA?

You are creating a dilema that isn't there and doesn't need to be created. "

Farmgirl wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:13 AM:

" NValleyGirl - We actually agree. It is not up to the teachers to teach morality. But if a child of any age comes and voices an opinion that homosexual marriage is not moral because that is the way it is taught in their family, are the schools going to interpret that as prejudice or as a hate statement or bigotry or just consider it as an opposing opinion - which you and I agree it should be as the schools should not be teaching morality - regardless of the teacher's views? Yet, you have to agree, it is pretty hard to have kids in your class for 9 months and not express some opinion of your views of right from wrong. You may think this is not going to be an issue, but, believe me, conservatism and morality are not popular in our public schools - in spite of many good and moral teachers! Sometimes their hands are so tied! "

Paddy wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:14 AM:

" I'd have preferred Napa County do what Kern County has done. They've discontinued performing wedding for anyone instead of being forced to perform gay weddings. "

Two Cents wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:24 AM:

" NValleyGirl.. I believe you are very wrong. Just as there was once a big debate over whether health teachers should teach/promote abstinence or safe sex. There were supporters on both sides, and for many this was a huge moral issue.
Similarly now, when health teachers have their sex ed. unit, these kinds of issues will most certainly come up. Kids do ask questions, especially about things that are circulating in the current news.
And you are very misinformed about what exactly it is that health teachers teach. The curriculum isnt just about the biology of sex and body parts, it encompasses all the issues surrounding sex: making good decisions, diseases, birth control, pregnancy, etc. and this includes open forums for kids to talk about common misconceptions, questions, concerns, etc.
Teachers are all going to have their own viewpoints. And since most teachers are liberals, I would imagine that those teachers will promote that safe sex marriage is a terrific advancement in our society for all the reasons talked about by supporters in this blog.
Those of us who feel this is wrong, and against personal morals, should not have teachers contradicting what we choose to teach our family in our home. Especially, they should not make our children feel as if they are bigots or behind the times.
I believe that Farmgirl brings up a very real topic and I encourage anyone who has 7th and 9th grade students taking health to talk to their kids and make sure they what they are being taught is not one sided, just like history/government teachers are not supposed to push their political beliefs on their students. "

moongirl512 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:51 AM:

" Rich, I know its a serious subject.. but why are all these people wasting their time worrying about other people??? Im sure these people have their own problems. Why dont they solve those before they use their time to worry about others?


Congrats to all the newlyweds...maybe someday ill be there too! "

NValleygirl wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:03 AM:

" Two Cents: I am not sure what health classes you have been in recently. If you want to teach your children that being gay is morally wrong, that is fine. It is your own perogative. However no teacher is going to "teach" a child how to "be" gay no matter how liberal they are. Just as my health teacher did not teach me how to "be" heterosexual.

There is a difference between feeling that homosexuality is not an option for you or your family members and being a bigot. A child can say "I don't think homosexuality is morally right" without being accused of being a bigot. If you teach your kids to say "I HATE gay people because...", well there is a huge difference.

I am not on this board trying to convince everyone that they should accept the gay lifestyle into their homes. I personally, do not belive that it is a choice whether or not to be gay. Especially with the new reseach done on the brains of homosexual people. But that is for another day.

What I am failing to understand is the lack of tolerance for another human being. Even if you do believe that being gay is a sin, it is not your "sin". Who are you to judge, who are you to say what is right and wrong for someone else? If you believe that being gay is wrong for you, then by all means do not get involved in a same sex relationship. Seems pretty simple, no? "

Farmgirl wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:24 AM:

" Moongirl512 - This is not about "other" people. This dynamic will have an effect one way or another on every member of society. People do not live in a bubble where what they do never affects anyone else. The people who are talking are concerned about the effect of legalized homosexual marriage on their lives and the lives of their children. To say this will only affect the homosexuals who marry is totally ignoring the social ramifications this will have on everyone. Hence the concern!!!! "

dizzy wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:56 AM:

" As a parent of kids in high school and middle school, I have had the option of allowing my child to participate in the sex ed each year. If you don't want your kids being taught information that is different from your own beliefs, you can opt out of that portion of the class. Regardless, it is still the parents responsibility to followup with their own discussions in the context of their own moral beliefs. No amount of teaching can replace the open dialogue with your kids. "

Two Cents wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:12 PM:

" NValleygirl... I encourage you to re-read my post, because clearly you got something out of it that wasnt even close to being there.
When did I say I was worried about teachers "teaching" kids to be gay? When did I demonstrate a "lack of tolerance" for gay people? And when did I talk about the "sins" of gay people?
Fact is, I have no business or concern as to what these people do behind closed doors. There are plenty of heterosexual people doing things behind closed doors that I wouldnt want to know about, and may find morally degrading as well.
My point is that I have certain morals, beliefs, values that I want to teach my children, whether religious based or otherwise, and I dont want anyone else telling me or them, that we are "stoneage thinkers" or "non-tolerant" or "homo-phobic".
I have the right to belief strongly in what I believe just as you do. People on these posts have made lots of personal attacks, many of them religious persecution... that is wrong. Let me believe and teach to my family what I want and dont tell us we're wrong for believing it.
You say that "A child can say "I don't think homosexuality is morally right" without being accused of being a bigot". Well thats been disproven just by reading the previous posts. Look how many people have said pretty much just that only to have people say "who are YOU to say what's morally right" "what God are you worshipping" "what bible are you beating", etc.
This proves my point, conservative values are always blasted, usually by the same people who are promoting equality!! "

NValleygirl wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:39 PM:

" Why are people acting like homosexuality is a new concept? Now all of these accomodations will have to be made for children since Prop 22 was overturned. Since gay couples didn't exist before then, right?

Did homosexuality not exist before? Have you never seen a gay couple, in person, on tv? Were gay couples not living together before, were they not raising children (which some of your children may go to school with now)? Is being gay a new phenomenon that has been uncovered within the last month? "

NValleygirl wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:58 PM:

" Two Cents: Some of my comments were directed at your post, some were meant to be general comments.

You are worried about health class, so what are you worried about teachers teaching your child in health then. If not about homosexuality? If the liberal health teachers are teaching about sex, are they teaching your kids about the other morally degrading things that people do behind closed doors that you don't like? Or are you worried that they will say "If you are heterosexual, that's alright. If you are homosexual, that is alright too"?

The reason that people are upset is not because you find homosexuality morally wrong, but that you are actually trying to prevent them from obtaining certain rights through marriage. No one is trying to make you love homosexuality, but your personal beliefs are infringing on the rights of deserving people. There is no legal reason these people should be treated as less than equal.

Gay marriage isn't going to scare children or confuse them into thinking that they are gay. Since homosexuality has been around for quite sometime, the "what will the kids think argument" is a moot point. Is is just that their relationships are legally legitimate that bothers you? "

JustMy$.02 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:13 PM:

" NValleygirl, Im not trying to be rude here but you really dont see what two cents is trying to tell you. And your not answering (directly) a ligitamet point he is making.

two cents made this comment;
"You say that "A child can say "I don't think homosexuality is morally right" without being accused of being a bigot". Well thats been disproven just by reading the previous posts. Look how many people have said pretty much just that only to have people say "who are YOU to say what's morally right" "what God are you worshipping" "what bible are you beating", etc."

Now think about your comment that homosexuality isnt a new phenomenon, sure but it hasnt been socially acceptable either. So two cents's scenario is mute prior to legalizing gay marriage. But now hardcore liberals can and will label a child a bigot for even suggesting that gay marraige is wrong.

And if you dont think 'sexual orientation' isnt going to be 'openly' discussed in grade school (thats k thru 5) just google the following and be alarmed at how much it is already done,

"talking homosexuality in the grade school classroom"

After googleing that, dont ever try and tell me its not being discussed in grade school classrooms.

The moral decay of our society is continuing, and this is just another step in that wrong direction. "

NValleygirl wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:23 PM:

" Justmy$.02: My apologies that you are not satisfied with my answer. I will try harder next time. It is my main priority in life to make sure that everyone here is 100% satisfied with my responses.

Lots of things were not socially acceptable. I am wearing pants to work today, that used to be frowned upon. I am in an interracial relationship, frowned upon and even was illegal too (and for a while the Bible was used to back that up). Plus I enjoy voting (Yay women's sufferage!).

I am not saying that it isn't talked about in school, but no one is teaching children to be gay. You can learn to be tolerant and accepting of another person without embracing their lifestyle. "

Two Cents wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:28 PM:

" JustMy$.02... thank you!!! (And I love your blog name!!)
But seriously, I am glad that at least someone out there gets it!!
As far as blogging back and forth, it really gets tiring when you start to realize that ok, healthy debate is fine... but really, in heated issues like this, it seems people just cant get the other side.
I am starting to get that the people who think this is ok, really dont understand why and how we feel that making everything under the sun in the 21st century socially acceptable contributes to the degradation of morals and values in this country (or what's left of them, anyway).
We already have a huge breakdown of the "normal" family unit (please lets not start a huge controversy about what constitutes 'normal'), and now we have another dynamic which adds to that breakdown even further.
Call it old fashioned, but I believe that the institution and sacrament of "marriage" belongs to a man and a woman. If you want to grant something called "civil partnership" or something like that, I could stomach that a little more than "marriage". I know they are born this way, I know they cant help it, I'm not trying to deny them their feelings or who they want to love, but the whole marriage thing... to me, Im sorry, its just wrong. "

hazell wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:02 PM:

" if it makes u happy.............. "

JustMy$.02 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:11 PM:

" NValleygirl you said "Lots of things were not socially acceptable". And then you list some. This is exactly the point I have tried to expand upon. Elvis shaking his hips in the 50's was considered obsene by some. Yet today, as our sociaty's morals have decayed, we have teenage girls 'simulating sex' on a dance floor (freaking I believe they call it) and people want to consider that 'acceptable'.

Do I consider Elvis shaking his hips obsene? NO
Do I consider teenage girls simulating sex on a dance floor unacceptable? YES
Do I consider you wearing a pant suite to work unacceptable? NO
Do I consider your hetero marriage to a man of another race unacceptable? NO
Do I consider gay marriage the ultimate undoing of our society? NO

Do I advocate moving our 'social norms' back to something more puritanical? NO

But how far do we as a society let our 'accepted norms' continue to drift left?
Where do we draw the line? That is what we conservatives are arguing. We are looking at this situation from a 'macro' perspective. Where liberals are looking at it from a 'micro' perspective.

I am asking you, NValleygirl, to take a step back, look at this from a 'macro' perspective, and tell me where would you like to draw the line? What in this big bad world do you consider 'unnacceptable behavoir' that consenting adults are doing right now today, that they may want us in society to accept as we move our morale meter farther and farther to the left? "

pharper wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:07 PM:

" Two Cents-- The reason some of us "don't get the other side" is because the other side has not a single fact to support it. You said it yourself: gays and lesbians are born that way. If they can't help it, why are they denied their rights as human beings? Does being homosexual somehow preclude the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? What reason, besides the Biblical (and by the way, isn't there a little clause in the Constitution about separation of church and state?), is there for preventing TWO consenting ADULT human beings from having a legal marriage. The church can do as it pleases; as far as the government is concerned, though, homosexuals should have the same rights to marry as everyone else.

As far as "drawing the line" is concerned, I don't quite understand why this is some kind of descent into a situation that requires drawing the line. Spare me the anecdotes about this opening the door to marriages between people and dogs, or polygamists. Two consenting adults who marry one another affects you in no way, shape, or form. If you don’t approve of gay marriage—don’t have one! It’s that simple. How does a loving gay married couple affect your life? What about your heterosexual marriage does it threaten? Procreation’s not an issue; we have too many people as it is, and it’s not like heterosexual people are going to suddenly “convert” to homosexuality, thereby endangering the population numbers.

So where are your facts? "

pharper wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:25 PM:

" (continued)
Another thing I find disturbing is the argument that talking about homosexuality with our children is somehow a sign of moral decay in our society. I was under the impression that the Bible taught acceptance and tolerance of all. How will our children learn to accept others if we force these “others” to remain a mystery to them? Telling a child what homosexuality is will not “convert” them. NO one is trying to force a “homosexual agenda” on our children. To be perfectly honest, there is no homosexual agenda, nor a homosexual “lifestyle.” Homosexual people are as varied and unique as heterosexual people; putting them all in the same box by calling their orientation a “lifestyle” is narrow-minded and biased.

It isn’t a choice to become gay; I highly recommend the documentary “For the Bible Tells Me So” to those interested in learning the science of being gay. I’d also recommend doing research in the libraries of most top universities in the country. True, there is no proven “gay gene,” but that doesn’t mean a person isn’t born gay. There’s no gene for a sense of humor, but people are born with that, aren’t they?

Lastly, I’d like to address the “pick and choose” Christianity I see in the comments of those Biblically/morally opposed to gay marriage. Only a few paragraphs before the one that calls homosexuality an abomination is one that says eating shellfish is an abomination. Further back in the Bible is a story about selling one’s daughter into slavery. It seems to me that these people adhere to the Bible literally ONLY when it suits them. And, for the record, “abomination,” in the language and time in which the Bible was written, meant “against the cultural norm,” not “morally reprehensible.” "

Two Cents wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:59 AM:

" Once again... i find myself repeating.. I'm not claiming any FACTS... I'm claiming my OPINION. Which the laws of this country entitle me to. And my opinion isnt subject to your interpretation. It doesnt have to be justified by you or anyone else on this blog.
My opinion is that the sacrament/institution of marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. That's it... You dont have to like it, respect it, agree with it. It is what it is... I will teach my kids what I believe as you can to yours. "

paranoidinthetrees wrote on Jun 21, 2008 8:42 AM:

" Although gay marriage flys in the face of biblical dogma, it represents recognition of a basic human condition. As for teaching what's right or wrong to children, that's what parents are for. "

winemd wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:57 AM:

" Two (or three or more) consenting adults who marry one another (or their dog) affects you in no way, shape, or form (or someone marrying a 14 year old). If you don’t approve of gay (or multiple or bestial or child) marriage—don’t have one! It’s that simple. How does a loving gay married couple (or threesome or bestial "couple" or child marriage) affect your life? What about your heterosexual marriage does it threaten? The same arguments apply to any of the other examples. Shouldn't a loving and consensual threesome have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, too? This argument against polygamous marriages is the least tenable, as for beasts and children under 18 the argument can be made that their is not true consent (although I think many 16- 18 year olds might argue about that). I am not comparing these examples as equivalent to homosexuality, but a line IS drawn somewhere, and the courts have shifted the line. The argument that the majority does not have its say bothers me, although I disagree with discrimination against homosexuals, and I have no problem with their marriages and receiving the consequent benefits. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 21, 2008 3:38 PM:

" I see in today's news that the pro-gay marriage advocacy groups have petitioned the California Supreme Court to throw out the marriage initiative that is scheduled to be on the November ballot. It is amazing the lengths to which some folks will go to thwart the basic rights of a democracy. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 22, 2008 12:04 AM:

" pharper, you recommended the movie, "For the Bible Tells Me So." By coincidence I watched it today. I found this pseudo-documentary to be one-sided, condescending, and rather boring. Particularly demeaning was a cartoon sequence in which a dumb character cleverly named "Christian" appears. It reminded me a lot of the techniques used in "Bowling for Columbine: String a whole bunch of half-truths together, portray the opposition in a bad light, and distort their viewpoint. They went to great pains making light of the verses in the OT that forbid homosexuality, when any good Christian scholar knows that the NT clearly supersedes the ceremonial and ritualistic practices of the OT. Also, any student of logical fallacies can tell you that this type of argument is called a straw man. All in all, a very unimpressive showing. "

GetReal! wrote on Jun 22, 2008 8:26 AM:

" It is none of my business what homosexuals do behind closed doors. What bothers me is the Court’s decision now elevates homosexuality to the same legal status as race, a protected class. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that those who are advocating for "equal rights" for gays are determined to obtain "state" mandate to force equality that must completely trump liberty.
btw, in my opinion, if the predictions that I posted earlier would have had a source such as Nostradamous instead of the Bible, many of you would have started searching his ramblings. But because the Bible is the source, you won't give the predictions a second thought. That is sad! "

GetReal! wrote on Jun 22, 2008 10:07 AM:

" The hostility to individual conscience was evident in arguments presented to the California Supreme Court last month in a case pitting the rights of a lesbian couple to receive artificial insemination services from a medical clinic against the rights of Christian doctors to refuse to provide services in violation of their conscience. Lawyers representing the lesbian couple argued that there simply is no religious defense to such discrimination. In other words, if they can prove discrimination, there is no balancing of the rights of conscience. The rights of conscience have no legal standing. The L.A. Times headline indicated that the court seemed likely to rule against the doctors "

fishify wrote on Jun 22, 2008 10:09 AM:

" " Lynchings, poll taxes, and many other atrocities have been carried out by the “will of the people” at any given time – clearly it’s not an infallible guide to good government.
[...]
Critics of the Court’s decision appear to believe that anything that interferes with the desires of 51% of the population thwarts democracy. They fail to recognize that the actions of the courts are also a vital part of democracy. The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood clearly that the unfettered “will of the people” expressed through the ballot box becomes simply a “tyranny of the majority” – a frightening prospect. Precisely to prevent such tyranny they established a formidable bulwark – the separation of powers – ensuring that whenever the majority tried to trample the rights of minorities, the courts could step in to preserve those rights.

This is exactly what the California Supreme Court has done[...] Citing the Court’s 1948 ruling (also 4-3) striking down restrictions on interracial marriages, they pointed out that ‘previous tradition’ and ‘the will of the majority’ were insufficient grounds to restrict the rights of individuals also in that case (amazingly, the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t follow suit until 1967). Basic rights must be the foundation of democracy, and the courts have a key role to play in protecting those rights."

From the article "The California Supreme Court vs. “The Will of the People”



By Alec L. Hansen "

GetReal! wrote on Jun 22, 2008 12:18 PM:

" The absurdity of the “equality” argument comes into sharp focus in this scenario. Consider that a Christian school could expel two heterosexual students for sexual misconduct without exposing itself to legal liability, but could not expel homosexual students for the same offense. This is what it means for gays to become a protected class. Instead of achieving equality, they achieve a superior status in society. A religious school would be able to fire a teacher for garden variety adultery, but it would be illegal to fire a gay teacher for the same offense. "

GetReal! wrote on Jun 22, 2008 1:28 PM:

" Oh, and by the way, I have no argument against the courts decision to strike down the restrictions against interracial marriage. The fact that they existed is troublesome (although hindsight is 20/20). It is right that a minor race is protected. What is wrong is that the court has decided to "protect" a lifestyle, especially when the California Supreme Court has ruled against religious liberty, consistently in a series of cases since 1995. "

DesertRat wrote on Jun 23, 2008 1:21 AM:

" I have to applaud the great discussion. Actually learned a few things. 2 responses:
1) To those for G/L marriage: Try REAL hard to understand it takes time to overcome deep-seated learning and feelings. Wasn't that terribly long ago that some folks really, truly believed other races were sub-human. Also, there are many who feel that, irrespective of the issue, the court just blew away the will of the people, and perhaps find THAT more offensive than the issue itself. Just...give it some time. But I do have to ask...why put yourselves through all the hassle of marriage - you had it so good! ;-) Best of luck - you'll need it.
2) To those against: Take a deep breath, folks, and chill. It's their lives, let them live it - they'll do so anyway. Aren't there more important things for you to worry about? Besides, if I read my Bible and understand what God tells me correctly, their sin (if sin it is) is just as paid for by Christ's death as any of yours (or mine - gasp). So judge not, and all that, and move on. And if polygamy DOES come up, ignore that, too - at least THAT was ok in the Bible, even NT times. Now the pedo's, that's another story.
And remember, of all the commandments and rules in The Book, what did Jesus say? 1 - Love God..., and 2 - Love your neighbor - and no mention of "just the straight ones." "

Dan Ross wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:12 AM:

" numerous comments have been deleted recetly for being off the topic of same-sex marriages in Napa County.
There is a related forum that you can access at the top of this page for additional debates related to this topic. "

lmiller wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:04 PM:

" I don't think the government has any right to issue ANY marriages. They have no place in a covenant between a man and a woman. They should just issue (for everyone) domestic partnerships, then leave the marriages to the churches. Just a thought. "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Back to top
Submit news, announcements: Virtual Newsroom
Contact: News | Advertising | Subscriber Services | Work for us | Buy photos
More local news: American Canyon Eagle | St. Helena Star | Weekly Calistogan
Local tourism: Inside Napa Valley
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy