Fight for equality continues | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor

Fight for equality continues

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Comment

Dear editor, To Napa County Voters: Thank you for opposing Proposition 8. On Nov. 4, a majority of Napa County residents agreed with the California Supreme Court by saying “the right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people.” If the election had been up to Napa County voters, there would be no question about the validity or recognition of our marriage license.

The day after our marriage, even though we were already in a domestic partnership with each other, we felt the change in our relationship. Likewise, the day after the election, we felt an incredible loss. There is security in full recognition with all the traditions and implied expectations of marriage that domestic partnerships do not carry.

So the fight for equality continues in the courts and may someday return to our ballot. We believe the courts will decide that our founders were correct when they wrote the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” We believe our courts will ensure the equality of our pursuit of happiness within our marriage laws. Until then, we are thankful for neighbors who have shown love and compassion in supporting marriage equality.

Sande Sutter, Nance Matson / American Canyon

57 comment(s)

common sense wrote on Nov 23, 2008 7:42 AM:

" Just because you have the individual liberties does not mean that society has to endorse it as a best practice.

I'm sure polygamists feel like a disenfranchised minority deprived of equality, too. Doesn't mean we should grant government and financial rewards & benefits, though. "

Raven wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:06 AM:

" Congratulations upon your marriage and remember you are not alone in this fight. "

kevin wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:30 AM:

" LOL. Gotta love all the "love and compassion" that the anti 8 crowd is showering on Prop 8 supporters. The threats against churches, the boycotts of business, some people have even lost their jobs.

I hope they keep it up; even people who voted agains Prop 8 are becoming disgusted with their antics and ugly rhetoric. It can only help our side when this comes up for yet another vote... "

steph wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:00 AM:

" Kevin, where are the antics and ugly rhetoric in Nance's and Sande's letter?

And, Kevin, how far would you go to protect the rights of your family?

Do you condemn all anti-abortion protesters for the deadly violence of a few?

Sande and Nance should have the right to marry as much as any heterosexual couple. "

Paddy wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:26 AM:

" In retaliation to the retaliators I, and many like me, are no longer supporting any business that was an opponent to Proposition 8. I will refuse to support the bisexual/transgender crowd since they have so little regard for the majority of us who believe morality is more important to humanity than one's "right" to sodomize.

Sadly, you no on 8 crowd have brought it to this. "

citizen wrote on Nov 23, 2008 11:31 AM:

" Congratulations, Sande and Nance. Your rights and your fight are are the rights and the fight for all.

Kevin, no worry, there won't be another vote because the supreme justices in CA will uphold the constitutional law. You do not need to agree but that is not the point of law, for YOU to agree. We still have many racists and mysoginists living amongst us, as well, for you to keep company with. "

Raven wrote on Nov 23, 2008 1:58 PM:

" go ahead Paddy, boycott anyone you want to..it is your right to do so....so never use Google again...and I know how much Apple will miss your business.....you know how succesful the southern baptist boycott against Diseny was a couple years ago for their support of same sex partner benefits and pride day celebrations....had no impact at all and the baptists called it off last year...and btw..where is the morality in stripping away someone's civil rights and stopping two people who love each other and are committed to each from marrying....no matter how much you want it to be, this is not about what is going on in someone's bedroom.....

btw, here is a dirty lil secret for ya....I will wager there are a few hetero couples that do things that would fit into your definition of sodomy ... it is none of your business and it happens to be legal. "

verum wrote on Nov 23, 2008 4:12 PM:

" Don't like sodomy, don't do it. "

pharper wrote on Nov 23, 2008 4:32 PM:

" If marriage had to do with what kind of sex people had, an overwhelming number of heterosexual couples would not be married. "

alucawanza wrote on Nov 23, 2008 4:38 PM:

" Congratulations Paddy! You put the yes vote in a nutshell. It's really a vote against sodomy. It's gay bashing. btw, that dirty little secret about hetero couples.....it isn't a few who do it. It's a very popular form of heterosexual sexuality. Your letter reads like something from the Scarlet Letter.....and it was the Pastor who should have been wearing the big A. Should we be burning the homosexuals like they did the witches in Salem? Get real. This is the 21st century. We celebrate diversity. What people do in their bedrooms, consentually, is none of your business. You know what happens when you set yourself up as a judge. Judge not lest..... "

Sickothis wrote on Nov 23, 2008 6:10 PM:

" Good paddy. Stay home. Poor, sad, pathetic, Puritan.

Probably used the same language in the 60's. "

Sickothis wrote on Nov 23, 2008 6:12 PM:

" And btw paddy - why should ANYONE have any regard for your morals? You don't seem to care much about anyone else's. "

steph wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:21 PM:

" Boy, is PADDY gonna be jealous when he finds out that some heterosexuals get to...YOU know...

And the boycott is gonna be tough, too, but just remember, it's all about PRINCIPLE. "

misfit wrote on Nov 23, 2008 9:26 PM:

" Paddy...do you even know what sodomy is? Men can and do sodomize women. One does not need to marry if all they want to do is "Sodomize". Are you that ignorant? People have sex outside of marriage all the time. Most heterosexuals do in fact. What immorality are you referring to?
How can you equate someone's wanting to marry the person they love...with immorality? I find your complete lack of any kind of spiritual understanding as immoral.
And just what have we brought it to Paddy??? What are you going to do now? You people are so full of hate and are so remiss in living the teachings of Jesus and you hide behind your hatred, within your crowd like it somehow makes it more jusifiable. Do you really believe you are going to heaven? Bring it on baby. "

cedwardswine wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:01 PM:

" congrats nancee and sande you are pioneers in our journey for equality. To Paddy how about a day with and a life of equality and turn some of that negative into something positive that you spew?
positive energy breeds positive results. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 23, 2008 11:29 PM:

" citizen wrote: "there won't be another vote because the supreme justices in CA will uphold the constitutional law."

No they won't. There are at least 4 justices that support Prop 8. "

srnitnw wrote on Nov 24, 2008 8:49 AM:

" Seems to me that if Paddy's take on why we should oppose gay marriage is the majority's opinion, then we're half way there... gay women can now marry, we'll just have to keep fighting for the men.

Stop making this about sexual acts, that is not what makes up a marriage. "

Raven wrote on Nov 24, 2008 8:57 AM:

" we'll have to wait and see, won't we JR....and if they do uphold, look for a ballot measure in june of 2010...on a side note..interesting lil schism developing on the yes on 8 side....seems the very extreme yes folks want to push to have even the domestic partnerships laws repealed, ...take a look at sunday's chron.. "

Rich wrote on Nov 24, 2008 9:31 AM:

" Sorry about your feeling of "loss", however the word Marriage was never yours to have. It belongs to the union of a man and woman only. "

Raven wrote on Nov 24, 2008 11:03 AM:

" Rich, how much more hate can you spew....the word marriage doesn't belong to any one group...it is a social construct that has changed and evolved as societies have...and will continue too....at one time marriage didn't belong to interracial couples either and that has changed... "

Rich wrote on Nov 24, 2008 12:08 PM:

" Raven, It is amazing to me how you try to spin this into hate.
There is a huge difference between hate and what is morally acceptable to mainstream society.
I hate no one but I will do what I feel is necessary to protect traditional marriage. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 24, 2008 4:35 PM:

" My understanding of Jesus is that he believes in treating all people with love and respect. "Unconditional positive regard" is how I like to think of it, but that's just me. I realize everyone sees it at least just a little bit differently. The founding fathers were painfully aware of the history of abuses resulting when restrictive religious beliefs were used to deny equality to a minority. They believed all people were created equal and should have equal treatment. When one group, even a majority, uses their beliefs to restrict the equal treatment of others, that is discrimination. That causes pain and is immoral. Our form of government was intended to prohibit that.
This is the first time in U.S. history, a recognized constitutional right was repealed by a simple majority vote. You are free to vote, but it was never intended for any of us to be voting on equal rights for a minority.
Direct democracy was never the intent of the founding fathers who realized separation of powers and a system of checks and balances was necessary to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Equal rights for a minority should never be subject to a popular vote. "

misfit wrote on Nov 24, 2008 5:52 PM:

" Rich...(you are not)! Any type of judgement, whether it's based on race, sexual orientation, gender, whatever...is a form of hate. You are judging someone else as less worthy or less than you. The thing is, when you judge anyone or anything, you also are placing a huge burden on yourself to be a certain way, to act a certain way and you essentially close off to all possibility which is the wonder really, of our lives and this universe we live in. You don't allow yourself tot live in a world of inclusiveness and possibility but, a world of limitation and constriction. I pity you people who's lives are so limited that you work to involve yourselves in other's lives, that have no impact on you personally and you hurt people. If it is for religious reasons that you oppose same sex marriage, why are you not at peace with your religion and yourself. Why do you not see the wonder of life and simply have gratitude for what you have and faith that every human being has the right to find their OWN way...whatever way that may be. I'm just curious about what goes on in your heads. Enlighten me please. "

Rich wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:29 AM:

" misfit, you said it all.
I don't agree that homosexuals have the right to use the word married to describe their union and therefor I am evil and deserving only of scorn. What an uplifting outlook. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:23 AM:

" common. Allowing marriage equality does not endorse it as a best practice, it only allows everyone the same opportunities to succeed or fail that our forefathers intended.
While some same sex couples can and do provide excellent parenting and the best possible nurturing environment, some straight couples severely abuse their children both emotionally and physically. So the argument "that is the best practice" is just not true, and therefore no excuse for excluding one group from equal opportunities for liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "

Raven wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:46 PM:

" interesting Rich...looked at his post and still trying to find where misfit said you were evil and deserving of scorn....pity maybe, but not scorn....he just questioned, as many of us have, the motives behind stripping away and denying equal rights to your neighbors? oh, btw,..the reason marriage is not used to describe civil unions is quite simple....civil unions are not marriage.... "

John Richards wrote on Nov 25, 2008 1:31 PM:

" misfit wrote: "I pity you people who's [sic] lives are so limited that you work to involve yourselves in other's lives."

It's the other way around. Heterosexuals were perfectly content with the status quo that existed prior to May 15. But that wasn't good enough for the gays, they wanted to horn in on what the hets had, a type of union called 'marriage', even though their domestic partnership status bestowed all the rights and privileges of marriage. It reminds one of a petulant child who has a hissy fit because he wants the same color balloon that little Johnny has. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 25, 2008 1:43 PM:

" equalnotspecial wote: "When one group, even a majority, uses their beliefs to restrict the equal treatment of others, that is discrimination." There should be no discrimination when it comes to substantial issues such as education, jobs, right to vote, etc.
However, in lesser matters each of us discriminates (legally) every day. For example, I choose attractive women for my dates, rather than the ugly duckling ones. Society discriminates when it allows men to walk topless down city streets but not women. I could go on and on, but you get my point. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:21 PM:

" JR. I agree we do make personal choices from many options in our personal lives, based on what we think is best for us. But we have options to choose from. When the state limits our options, it had better have a compelling reason that the restriction is good for all of us. If the state gave you a list of who you could date and it turned out to be only people who would not be on your list, I think you would feel unreasonably denied the pursuit of happiness. So the distinction is about the state telling you what you can do, or you being free to make that determination for yourself. And I agree there are other restrictions that the law makes, like the tops thing. I'd be willing to give women equality here, wouldn't you? There are other restrictions that discriminate that are not necessary like "don't ask, don't tell". The idea of our country has always been about freedom, and we have always been moving in that direction, though not without setbacks. Some people are always trying to restrict the lives of others instead of living their own lives, so we have to be very careful about what restrictions we accept from our government. "

glenroy wrote on Nov 25, 2008 4:26 PM:

" Paddy….way to go…fight fire with fire….you, I and many will not support businesses that were anti-8.… "

Paddy wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:10 PM:

" LMAO - Glad to see I hit a perverse nerve with you all. And none of you are telling me anything new. Shocked? I'm not surprised. "

Rich wrote on Nov 26, 2008 6:57 AM:

" glenroy, yes it does work both ways.
After having to put up with accusations of racism and hate because of my beliefs I will avoid doing business with the no supporters and as an employer I will certainly scrutinize employment applications and do careful interviews to avoid potential problems. "

Raven wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:01 PM:

" and you are aware Rich that it is illegal to not hire someone because of their political beliefs ... or sexual orientation ... and that even asking those questions can be grounds for actions against you by those not hired....and I am also sure that the business you will be boycotting are fearing the loss of your business....but if that is what you feel you must do, so be it.... "

misfit wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:07 PM:

" Is that why you didn't hire me Rich???
Uh...I'll be in touch. "

Rich wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:24 PM:

" misfit, I hire the person most qualified for the job and morals are a very important qualification of the job. "

Rich wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:46 PM:

" Raven, the law says I can not discriminate, it says nothing about a requirement to hire gays that I feel have the potential to disrupt my business. "

Raven wrote on Nov 27, 2008 12:45 PM:

" and the law says you cannot use sexual orientation in any capacity to discriminate....and show us how being gay will disrupt your business?

You are announcing to one and all that you plan on practicing discrimination and bigotry in your hiring ... Bravo, Rich, gives us real insight into your character......sounds like the people who wouldn't hire African Americans or Mexican Americans because everyone knew they weren't good workers.... "

Rich wrote on Nov 27, 2008 5:10 PM:

" Raven, I don't know how long it has been since you held a job but today a job application is designed to root out potential trouble makers and the accompanying credit check and background check insure that I know all there is to know about who I am dealing with. I am allowed to base my hiring on what I learn from that process without it being considered discrimination. "

Raven wrote on Nov 27, 2008 6:42 PM:

" and in California Rich you may not ask a person's sexual orientation, it is..and if sexual orientation is the basis for not hiring it is actionable...but the fact that you would even consider such an action shows your true feelings about homosexuals and anyone that opposes the way you think...face it, Rich, you are acting like the same bigots who wouldn't hire 'uppity' African-Americans .... you are threatened by people you don't understand and rather than take the time to, you would rather strike out with whatever means you have, legal or not.....so you keep doing that Rich ... and Rich, it is know of your business whether I am employed or not but if you must know....been at the same job for more than 10 years and run a small business employing two people myself as a second job... "

John Richards wrote on Nov 27, 2008 10:26 PM:

" Raven wrote: "you may not ask a person's sexual orientation, it is..and if sexual orientation is the basis for not hiring it is actionable."
Isn't there an exception for religious organizations? I could see a real problem brewing if a church office unknowingly hired a flaming lesbian. "

Raven wrote on Nov 28, 2008 4:46 AM:

" a church couldn't not be forced to hire a gay priest in the religious believes prohibit it, just as a catholic church wouldn't be forced to hire a jewish priest or female priest..however state law is less clear about churches and the hiring of administrative positions, because most complaints against churches are settled out of court so no precedent is established....state law is quite clear on private and public employee hiring, you cannot in any way, discriminate using sexual orientation,

there is a school of thought in the legal community that says since sexual harassment is not allowed in churches then sexual discrimination is not either ... and btw, JR, what makes a lesbian a flaming lesbian? what makes a flaming heterosexual? "

hospitality24 wrote on Nov 28, 2008 5:49 AM:

" WoW!!! Raven you must be one of the gayest (happy) people in here on these homosexual blogs! Good for you! Stand up for your rights don't take it up the rear anymore!!!! "

Rich wrote on Nov 28, 2008 7:14 AM:

" Raven, I don't need to ask, it is all spelled out in the background stuff, joint accounts, improper gender name for spouse and so on.
Oh and false information is also grounds for dismissal. "

misfit wrote on Nov 28, 2008 9:14 AM:

" JR Please define a "Flaming" lesbian???
How did this post make it? It is clearly inflammatory. ; )
John...Why are you afraid of Lesbians?
You know, I think your mother must not have loved you enough when you were a child because, you are soooo insecure. "

Paddy wrote on Nov 28, 2008 9:58 AM:

" I agree with Rich. I too will have to reconsider who I hire. If so many gays are boycotting businesses because that business believes homosexuality is perverse and immoral then I don't want anyone that small minded working for me. We still have a right to vote for anything and anyone that we believe in and to attack that person or business because of how they voted is reprehensible. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 28, 2008 12:28 PM:

" A 'flaming' lesbian is simply one who is flamboyantly expressive of her sexuality, no slur intended.

Misfit, what makes you think I'm "afraid" of lesbians, or "insecure"? I am one of the most secure persons I know. Your jumping to unwarranted conclusions is not indicative of a rational line of thinking. "

Raven wrote on Nov 28, 2008 3:01 PM:

" hmm.....Rich, that is bunk and you know....tell...is Tony and male or female name?...and what would be false information? if a lesbian of gay couple are registered domestic partners, how do you handle them? how would Tony and Julie set off your gaydar? and what about roommates who set up a joint account to take care of expenses.... who determines what a proper gender name is...and who says they have a spouse?...What you are doing is actionable on so many levels...good luck to you...but the best thing about your post and paddy's is exposing the bigotry and hate behind your positions. "

grape wrote on Nov 28, 2008 7:06 PM:

" The first time I passed by a gay parade with men naked other than their leather chaps dancing around I realized some just want to have and flaunt sex sex sex and some just want to find someone special of the same sex. There are two different categories of gay and one is ruining it for the other. "

Raven wrote on Nov 28, 2008 9:01 PM:

" why does either have to meet your approval, grape....have you seen what the heterosexuals do in New Orleans during Mardi Gras....or the Colorado river during spring break?..are they ruining it for the other heterosexuals? "

Rich wrote on Nov 29, 2008 1:09 PM:

" Raven, Why don't you read back through ALL of your posts regarding prop 8 .......
It is intolerant people such as yourself that push us to respond in a manner that we might not have had the no on 8 people not acted like infants when the proposition was passed.
If you are going to call us haters and bigots, well we might as well live up to your expectations. "

Raven wrote on Nov 29, 2008 5:56 PM:

" Rich, I am not the only who has mentioned that ... everything you have said lately just exemplifies how deep that bigotry and hatred goes...that you are more than willing to violate the law to discriminate against someone for no reason other than their sexual orientation... and explain to me how fighting against that is being intolerant? Intolerance does not mean standing by when you see injustice being done....it means getting involved, speaking out and fighting against that injustice...

if you think that gives you a right to act that way, so be it ... but don't expect myself and others to stop because you don't like seeing the truth about your actions and attitudes on the computer screen. "

misfit wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:06 AM:

" John Richards...and let's not mention the weekly demonstrations of flaming man love that we witness on the NFL pre-game shows and the ensuing football games. How 'bout those guys who pretend to play on the studio field just so they can, "Pretend hike" the ball so that the quarterback can cop a feel. Hmmmmm. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 30, 2008 2:25 PM:

" Rich. You lost nothing when 8 passed and would have lost nothing if it had failed. Gay people lost what many courts including both supreme courts consider a civil right. Of course they are hurt and angry. But if you are really willing to live up to our expectations, don't act like haters and bigots. That is not what we expect. Our expectations are that you don't do that, not that you do. "

Rich wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:48 AM:

" equalnotspecial, and what we expect is that you folks will stop striking out at us in anger. We are entitled to our beliefs and values and you need to understand that when you act in this manner we have no interest in listening to any argument you can present, valid or not "

Raven wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:19 AM:

" nice open mind Rich, not interested in any valid argument. "

Rich wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:38 AM:

" Raven, keep in mind that you are the lead instigator. You are doing a great job of getting people off the fence and on our side. "

Raven wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:26 PM:

" aww, shucks Rich, as much as i would like to think that, I have a hunch that most of, if not all, your minds were made up well in advance of anything I might post. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

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: