NVR Logo
Home » News » Local
Same-sex resolution a hot topic
Most Napa councilmembers say vote on issue 'doesn't feel right'
Monday, March 16, 2009
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
By KEVIN COURTNEY
Register Staff Writer
Proposition 8 coverage
August 19th, 2009
Judge sets January trial date for Prop. 8 case
July 16th, 2009
Caution urged in repeal of gay marriage ban
June 30th, 2009
Judge likely won’t grant Prop. 8 injunction
May 27th, 2009
Video: Same-sex marriage rally in Napa
Same-sex marriage ban upheld by state Supreme Court
more
Kevin Courtney articles
November 20th, 2009
Entertainment district, Copia and streets are hot topics at first downtown forum
November 19th, 2009
Napa OKs energy-saving guru, plan
November 14th, 2009
Napa study to examine more downtown street changes
November 13th, 2009
'Grassy' Napa tap water will soon improve
November 12th, 2009
Young and old pay tribute to veterans
more
Napa City Councilman Mark van Gorder’s request that the city take a stand in support of same-sex marriage has triggered a flood of response, pro and con.

But when the issue comes before the council Tuesday afternoon, it will likely go nowhere.
The other four council members say they do not intend to support a resolution in support of marriage rights for everyone. Regardless of their personal beliefs, the council should not be taking a position on controversial social issues, they say.

The group Democrats of Napa Valley sent out an e-mail blast last week urging members to attend the 3:30 p.m. council meeting at City Hall in support of marriage equality. “Remind them that we elected them to FULLY represent us and we expect them to stand with us on this,” the e-mail urged.
Van Gorder has submitted a resolution asking the council to affirm broadly the right of everyone to marry, regardless of sexual orientation.

The resolution, revised from the original, reads: “The city does not support discrimination and finds that all people regardless of gender should be able to enter into the legal contract of marriage and receive the same social and legal benefits and recognition as conferred by the State of California.”
His original resolution would have asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. The court is considering a legal challenge to Proposition 8 and is expected to rule later this spring.

Van Gorder said he was asked by several local gays and lesbians to put same-sex marriage before the council. The issue is a simple one, he said Friday. “Do elected leaders support equal rights for everyone?” he asked.

“It’s a deeply personal issue for people on both sides,” van Gorder said. As the son of a father who participated in the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, “I’ve always grown up being taught people should be treated equally,” he said.

Although the ban won a narrow victory statewide, Proposition 8 was opposed by 55 percent of city voters, van Gorder said.

Wedge issue

In interviews with the Register, van Gorder’s fellow council members say he has chosen the wrong forum for debating same-sex marriage. Unlike Berkeley or San Francisco, the Napa council does not have a tradition of weighing in on divisive social issues not directly related to the conduct of city business, they said.

“I don’t feel it’s appropriate for us to be dealing with it,” Mayor Jill Techel said. It’s one thing for her to declare her personal belief on this issue, but quite another to make it the city’s official position, she said.

“This is just a wedge issue,” Councilwoman Juliana Inman said. “How can you win by making either your Mormon friends angry or your gay friends angry?”

“It just doesn’t feel right,” Inman said. “It makes me feel so sad.”

Councilman Peter Mott said people may feel strongly about the same-sex marriage issue, but “I think it should be in the right venue. The city council isn’t the right venue.”

“I’ve been working with neighborhood groups, trying to get people to join each other and be more united,” he said. “This comes up and divides us.”

Two weeks ago, Mott seconded van Gorder’s motion to bring a resolution in support of same-sex marriage to the council for consideration.

He regrets his second, Mott said. “We shouldn’t be debating issues we don’t have any jurisdiction over. I feel very strongly about that.”

“We are going into treacherous times,” said Councilman Jim Krider, citing city financial issues. “We have to not take our eye off the ball. We want to deal with city problems, not state or federal problems.”

“I’d prefer to not even have a conversation at the council level,” Krider said.

The matter has been put on the agenda for the afternoon council session under Administrative Reports.

Techel said the council would give citizens the opportunity to voice their opinions on the marriage issue. The council always welcomes public comment, she said.

Van Gorder said he feels fine with letting council meetings become a forum for issues that residents feel strongly about. Democracy can be “messy,” he said, particularly on issues where passions run high.

Would he entertain the council taking a stance on abortion or another hot-button issue? Depending on the social context, he might, he said.

An earlier Register story about van Gorder’s proposal touched a nerve with online readers, who made nearly 150 comments. The majority of comments were hostile to the council voicing an opinion, saying it was not city business. “So all the problems facing the city have been solved?” said one.

“The City Council has no dog in this hunt,” wrote another.

Van Gorder also received praise. “I want to live in a community that is not afraid to state its position on equality or its opposition to discrimination,” a reader wrote.
106 comment(s)

common sense wrote on Mar 16, 2009 6:00 AM:

" Impeach Van Gorder for dragging our city in to this! He's turned it in to another Berkeley! "

sicksense wrote on Mar 16, 2009 6:53 AM:

" Van Gorder will also receive fewer votes if he runs for any office in the future. "

GerryKP wrote on Mar 16, 2009 7:24 AM:

" Go Mark! Thank you for your honesty and doing what you believe in. "

kevin wrote on Mar 16, 2009 7:35 AM:

" So will the resolution include the "right" of a brother to marry his sister?

Can't discriminate... "

tfytmp wrote on Mar 16, 2009 7:39 AM:

" The issue is HIDDEN on the afternoon agenda. The issue should have been put on the evening agenda and not hidden. No mater what side you are on; I urge everyone to voice your displeasure with the listing of the agenda item and the timing to the city council. "

Rocketman wrote on Mar 16, 2009 7:39 AM:

" Well at least four of the Council Members have it right!! Isn't that a majority?? I guess the majority has spoken, again! "

xbell wrote on Mar 16, 2009 8:13 AM:

" "The results didn't feel right"??? Since when did "feeling right" have any significance on election results? They feel right for the people who's votes win the election...and they don't feel right for those who loose. How do you think unborn babies would feel about pro choice votes?...Or the parents of a teenager who they found out got an abortion and they werent told becasue prop 4 failed?...I'm sure those results didn't feel right to them... But democracy (with voting for our preferred choice)...is the system we live by...it's a freedom we have fought for...which means people have died for) and if we continue to ignore the will of the people like this...we will end up in a bad place. The people have spoken...AND have spoken again! The End! "

Farmgirl wrote on Mar 16, 2009 8:45 AM:

" If the city council adopts resolution, they will ignore the fact that the majority does not support gay marriage. The polls showed it in larger numbers - and the "unscientific" poll by the NVR shows almost the same numbers. The city council has no right to ignore the beliefs of half their people in favor of another half. This has no place before the city council - period! "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 16, 2009 8:56 AM:

" This is a matter of community health, and in a country dedicated to equality, should require no discussion to pass.

The Ca. Supreme Court found "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." (p.117)

Dr. Chris Beyrer, the founder and director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health and Human Rights, said denying same sex couples the right to marry harms community health:``We know for certain that lesbian and gay individuals suffer harm to their physical and psychological health, and to their relationships and quality of life, as result of the shame, isolation and stigma accrued from their social and legal disenfranchisement." "

A bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot provide a rational basis for governmental discrimination. "

opiniagirl wrote on Mar 16, 2009 8:56 AM:

" The City Council has bigger fish to fry in this city. Where are the priorities?

This is a distraction that We are paying for as Tax Payers; I, for one, want the council to use their time efficiently.

Remember...these are elected officials "hired" to run this city not discuss State and Federal Policies.

This would be no different than napanet internet employees taking time from their job to make decisions about the policies of Comcast Broadband. If they were my employees, I'd fire them for NOT DOING THEIR JOB! "

bubble wrote on Mar 16, 2009 9:35 AM:

" I can see why the rest of the City Council would rather this not come before them, but it has. To vote no because it's not something they want to take a stand on is, in my opinion, an act of cowardice. How disappointing. "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Mar 16, 2009 9:35 AM:

" I just love reading the arguments on here about this resolution. I get a clear impression of what each individual is really all about.

A while back the NVR online forum was a place where a group of folks came to leave mostly neutral comments. Now that politics have taken precedent in almost everything, I see a lot of fences and rock throwing.

Doesn't matter if you're for or against prop 8. What Mark van Gorder did was leave his personal feelings aside and entertain the request of a few people he represents. Before you bash or support him, I'd suggest that you imagine this resolution was about gun possesion, abortion, prayer in our schools, whatever. Imagine that your concerns missed a state vote by a small margin and there was this local politician who stepped up for you. "

jmo wrote on Mar 16, 2009 10:31 AM:

" Thx to the four "Got it Right" council members.
Let's get back to fixing the ever growing potholes.

I think the survey ends today and it appears to be a draw. I am amassed that over three times as many voted here as were included in the original survey that caused all this nonsense. Let’s take a small breath and wait for the court decision so we can have at it all over again.
Yes I know it wasn't scientific and that many people on both sides figured the work around to vote than once.

Happy St. Pats Day! "

Paddy wrote on Mar 16, 2009 10:31 AM:

" The latest NVR poll has found less support for same sex marriage than back in November. Represent your constituents and DO NOTHING regarding the inane proposal.

In my opinion van Gorder is now a lame duck. Why would any elected official want to put themselves in a position that is so explosive and offensive, one way or another, to everyone. "

Raven wrote on Mar 16, 2009 10:42 AM:

" Why is it opponents trot out incest when they haven't got a rational reason to oppose it...they know it has no bearing on the issue....

and paddy...that poll isnt worth the electrons it is written on....

to borrow from several of the yes on 8 supporters here...the poll that matters was in Nov and 55 percent of Napans voted against prop 8...and I have a hunch even more would do so now... "

Rick wrote on Mar 16, 2009 11:09 AM:

" I am absolutely furious at the political abuse represented by this resolution. If it passed, it would be a bold-faced lie. It slanders 45% of Napa citizens by accusing us of discrimination, which is a lie, simply because we admit that marriage is and always has been a particular thing - a man and a woman in a committed relationship with the potential to propagate the human race. That's not discrimination, it's reality. It's not a city issue because nothing can be done about it at the city level, thus it is an abuse. Mr. Van Gorder ought to be reprimanded. "

winemd wrote on Mar 16, 2009 11:15 AM:

" In all fairness, everyone should also imagine what they would think if the shoe was on the other foot. If the vote situation were the opposite (state voted against prop 8, but Napa voted for it), and the resolution was in favor of traditional marriage, would you still feel the same about the city council considering the resolution? This applies equally to both sides. Would those who support the current resolution still want the city council to consider that resolution or would they be arguing that the city should not take a stand on such an issue? Would those who currently argue that the council should not get involved support the city council getting involved in a "state" issue then? Just something to think about... "

reneefannin wrote on Mar 16, 2009 11:20 AM:

" Mr. Courtney has misreported on an important fact: The resolution was brought by a group of citizens who understand that our society is at a pivotal place right now in assurring that gay citizens continue to have equal rights and societal perceptions. This is not a measure in which there is room for difference of opinion anymore than it was ok to have difference of opinion on whether African Americans should marry caucasians or drink from the same water fountains. It is not about making mormons or gays angry. It is suppression of a group of people. That has been wrong throughout history and will continue to be wrong. If the Napa City Council does not entertain this, then they are supporting that discrimination a nd at least we will know where they stand. This resolution was brought to Mr. Van Gorder by concerned citizens , not "local gays and lesbians". The people that care about this issue and who voted in a majority against Prop 8 in Napa are made up of gay and straight people and their families. Please do not try to make this a "gay issue" ,Mr. Courtney. It is a civil rights issue and many, many straight people know that. You are mistaken in stating that only "gays and lesbians" brought this to the table. Your mistake can cause misperception and it is my hope that you will correct it. "

reneefannin wrote on Mar 16, 2009 11:21 AM:

" The NVR poll is a joke and is unscientific and in no way representative of Napa City or County. My neice in Tennessee voted in it. "

napapop wrote on Mar 16, 2009 11:32 AM:

" Raven, that is where you are wrong. The vote that mattered the most was the state vote, same results,TWICE! "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 16, 2009 12:10 PM:

" Can our politician ( who seems more concerned with State government politics ) get some money from Arnold to mow the grass growing in the City's paved street in front of our house ? Now, big chunks are coming out of the network of cracks, but the grass is still growing.

I was just hoping he could get the State to take care of this, because obviously all of the important city business is taken care of and he has spare time. "

JimClark wrote on Mar 16, 2009 12:12 PM:

" Hot topic is OK. However, The People have aleady spoken and it is now The Law. That is what the initiative process is all about.

We should be using it to kick some legislators out of Sacramento. "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 16, 2009 12:16 PM:

" Don't you just love didtorting headlines ?

48% would vote to repeal Prop 8.

No mention of the 51% that would NOT vote to repeal Prop 8.

How's that for un-biased reporting ? Nope, no agenda here....... "

abouttime wrote on Mar 16, 2009 12:29 PM:

" Van Gorder stood up for what he believes in. It's a shame that the other Council members can't do the same. Even if they oppose gay marriage, at least stand up and be counted. "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of crises remain neutral." "

winewoman wrote on Mar 16, 2009 12:34 PM:

" I think that MarshaMarsha's comments here are so simply accurate and speak to the real issue, I'd like to repeat exactly what she said. Thank you for for your clarity, Marsha.

"Doesn't matter if you're for or against prop 8. What Mark van Gorder did was leave his personal feelings aside and entertain the request of a few people he represents. Before you bash or support him, I'd suggest that you imagine this resolution was about gun possesion, abortion, prayer in our schools, whatever. Imagine that your concerns missed a state vote by a small margin and there was this local politician who stepped up for you."

Again, imagine the resolution was about a different issue and your issue missed a state volte by a small vote and there was a local politition WHO HAD THE GUTS to step up for you.

Please, please stop with your "the end" and "period" and "twice" and threats and exhaggerations and exclamation points!!! Please. Van Gorder is speaking for a group of his constituents. You would want him to do the same for you if the shoe was on the other foot and it were any other issue. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Mar 16, 2009 12:38 PM:

" reason-ator:
This has been addressed before, in that very article, and now I shall do so again.
The headline stated 48 percent would vote to repeal because that was the largest polling group. The article stated 47 percent would not, so the headline represented the majority of those respondents ...
If the poll stated the majority of respondents wanted Prop 8 upheld, that would have been reflected in the headline.
Read more than just the headline before trying to prove claims of bias. "

Rocketman wrote on Mar 16, 2009 1:06 PM:

" Dan Ross............excellent "common sense" point! "

xmrs09 wrote on Mar 16, 2009 1:06 PM:

" I'd be willing to bet money that over the course of history, and even as recently as the passage of W's Patriot Act, that the Napa City Council, like many others, has passed resolutions for or against "issues we don't have any jurisdiction over." Has anyone –– city staff? NVR? -- done the research to find out? Just wonderin'... "

Straight Talk wrote on Mar 16, 2009 1:48 PM:

" "Van Gorder is speaking for a group of his constituents. You would want him to do the same for you if the shoe was on the other foot and it was any other issue."

Thanks for making the point. That is exactly what I have done while serving on city council for the past four years.

Working with various groups in our city, I supported bringing the below issues to council for consideration and a vote. Some people in our city opposed and some supported them:
-- Green Building ordinance
-- Dangerous Dog Ordinance
-- Lighted Crosswalks in key city intersections
-- Completing the stoplight at Redwood Road and Carol
-- Creating a Short Term Rental Ordinance.
-- Working to allow downtown businesses easier approval for live entertainment
-- Requiring, as much as possible, that city council to spend public dollars locally
-- Strong support for citywide improvement of local code enforcement

I have supported numerous other issues that were brought to city council by the four other councilmembers. Many of those issues and agenda items also started with a small group of people in our community contacting our Mayor or other city council members and asking the city to put the issue on the agenda.

My thanks to people who, while we may disagree, have been kind with the words you choose. Thanks also to people who wrote supporting comments. While some people say this issue is divisive, I believe community discussions like this make our community stronger.

My greatest fear is to live in a world where such discussions are prohibited. "

marine1/1 wrote on Mar 16, 2009 1:59 PM:

" Every week the Register see's to stir the pot on this Prop 8 issue one way or another. It's a dead issue until it comes before voters again and again we will win. YES on Prop 8 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

misfit wrote on Mar 16, 2009 2:00 PM:

" common sense...Napa would only be so lucky to be "Another Berkeley"! "

misfit wrote on Mar 16, 2009 2:08 PM:

" Paddy...maybe the answer to your question is that he has personal "Integrity". That, maybe he does what he believes to be the right thing whether or not it is going to be popular or whether or not it might harm his political career. Isn't that what you would want in a politician? Just as MarshaMarsha said, what if it were something that affected your constitutional rights and they were being taken away from you? Wouldn't you want your local politicians to stand up for you? This is a clear example of the hypocrisy of the conservatives. What do you people want? Educate me please...I am pleading with you. "

marine1/1 wrote on Mar 16, 2009 2:08 PM:

" Van Gorder has committed political suicide and I couldn't be happier. One less do little in the city council. He has a right to his opinion but not through the city council. "

misfit wrote on Mar 16, 2009 2:12 PM:

" reason-ator...I hate "didtorting" headlines too. But, that wasn't one of 'em. "

abouttime wrote on Mar 16, 2009 2:15 PM:

" marine 1, you are wrong about almost everything to speculate on. You are on the wrong side of every issue and frankly, the wrong side of history. Based on your comments, I guess we'll see Van Gorder as our next Mayor. "

Paddy wrote on Mar 16, 2009 2:15 PM:

" misfit - omg! Don't even say that in jest! My blood ran cold reading that. "

kbc wrote on Mar 16, 2009 2:17 PM:

" winemd - yes, I do think most people would feel the same way if the resolution were stating the exact opposite. I for one voted against Prop 8, but don't think our city resources should be wasted on something that they have no control over, is not in their jurisdiction and they were not elected to deal with. Straight Talk (van Gorder? why the alias?) - all the other items you listed are issues under the jurisdiction of the city council - you are comparing apples an oranges. And having the conversation is one thing, wasting time and money that could be spent acutally doing something is wrong. Are you telling me that the City Council and city staff has absolutely nothing else to do? If not, you are wasting resources, not good in these economic times. I know I don't have them to waste. "

Hear Ye wrote on Mar 16, 2009 2:25 PM:

" When the folks on the fringe right say Van Gorder has committed political suicide then you know it's a safe bet he will get re-elected with ease. "

misfit wrote on Mar 16, 2009 2:30 PM:

" Rick...I can't believe you made the arguments that you did. Of all the arguments possible, those were the worst. First of all, you used the word "committed"to describe the marriage between a man and a woman. Over 50% of those "committed relationships end in divorce, many because of adultery, abandonment, loss of interest or heck...they just fall out of love! Commitment only enters into it, less than half the time so, be real. And your argument about propagation is one that the flat earth society would use as well when, 11 year olds can propagate and it happens completely by accident a lot of the time and doesn't say much for those who "Choose" not to propagate or for one reason or another (God's will), cannot. This is the 21st century and the world does not share the bubble you live in. Human rights and Constitutional rights are what our country represents. Without that we are no better than any other country run by dictators regardless of whether taking away the rights of others was voted on or not. This should never have been brought to a vote in the first place! "

misfit wrote on Mar 16, 2009 2:37 PM:

" Paddy...What do you have against Berkeley? I would like to know because I find it to be inclusive, alive, eclectic and everyone pretty much allows others to live their lives. isn't that what a free country should be like? "

marine1/1 wrote on Mar 16, 2009 2:42 PM:

" abouttime: Ifrankly don't care if you think I'm on the right side of what you think is right or not. Of course you would think Van Gorder would become mayor. It's "abouttime" you got on the right side of the issue. "

guesswhoiam wrote on Mar 16, 2009 3:25 PM:

" I already voted, so did the entire state of California. Who care's anymore. The more we bicker about this topic the more publicity the no on Prop 8 folks get!!!!


YES ON 8 "

Paddy wrote on Mar 16, 2009 3:26 PM:

" misfit - Berzerkely is pro-dope, anti-military and accepts heavy-handed panhandling by addicts that line the main streets of the city. They have lost touch with reality and permit, or ignore, rude, crude, illegal and generally abhorrent behavior carried on in broad daylight.

It is not a place for children. Streets should be rated for the activity that can be seen.

I love Napa for it's family ideals, G-rated streets, parent participatory activities and it great charm. "

Paddy wrote on Mar 16, 2009 3:34 PM:

" My last comments were censored.... in a nutshell, prop 8 comparison to racial and gender discrimination have no place in the arguement. All races and genders are welcome to participate in a marriage between a man and woman. Anything else is a domestic partnership and legally binding.

If gay marriage is passed the line will grow of those who will try to have their particular depravities recognized as normal, legal and righteous. "

misfit wrote on Mar 16, 2009 4:37 PM:

" Sorry Paddy, you still haven't convinced me. I lived in Berkeley. I appreciate a place that causes me to open my eyes and incites me to attempt to understand ALL of humanity. It allowed me to see the dark side of human frailty and, believe it or not, the strength of the human spirit in survival mode. As a citizen of Berkeley, one is challenged to not look away from these things and from that, comes an acceptance of the world as it is and not how we wish it to be or pretend it to be nor can we ignore how it is. This is what I mean by the Bubble that we call Napa. Napa is so disconnected from this world. I have no say in who should inhabit this world nor by what rules they should live by as long as they are not a threat to me. I simply become an observer and there is a sense of peace in that. It is here for a purpose.Those panhandlers that you speak of are human beings and they pose no threat to me other than keeping me from imagining that I live in Disneyland. In Berkeley, you feel that you are somewhere. There is more than just one Vineyard after another, so many of them in fact that they become boring and not so especially beautiful anymore. In Berkeley, the beautiful homes are often next to apartment buildings. No one really tries to separate themselves from others. I think it all comes down to fear. There seems to be less of it in Berkeley and if one is aware, they feel less of it too by being there. In Berkeley, you have permission to be who you are. It is freeing...for everyone. "

winemd wrote on Mar 16, 2009 5:15 PM:

" kbc, I believe you are one of the few. I agree with you. But I think that many who are saying "of course the city council should spend time on this" would not say that if it was the opposite resolution. And I believe that many of those who are saying "this is a waste of city council's time" would say "Hooray for the city council" if it was the opposite. "

jmo wrote on Mar 16, 2009 5:59 PM:

" WOW misfit you make me laugh!!!!
Berkeley is a hot bed for anarchists, socialists, left wing fascists and communists. Just try and have a centrist or conservative opinion or idea in that town. You will be shouted down, boycotted or worse.
So why exactly did you voluntarily elect to move from the paradise known as to this Hell on earth place called Napa? Is it because you wanted to suffer as a misfit? -:) (smiling) or just be a loveable burr under our skin? "

DinoSilver wrote on Mar 16, 2009 7:04 PM:

" Straight Talk -

Your list of accomplishments that you brought before the city for consideration is a good list - and one that the city can have an effect on. The issue of marriage equality for gay persons is not the same as green building issues and lighted sidewalks. Even if the city council adopts the resolution - there would be no change as this is a state issue, not a city issue. All you have done is divided your constituents and the city council members. If you want to stand up for marriage equality - you should leave that for your next election. And, if you feel so strongly on this issue - you should run for an office where you can make a difference on gay rights. Napa City Council is not your forum. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 16, 2009 7:35 PM:

" DinoSilver, you said, "The issue of marriage equality for gay persons is not the same as green building issues..." But some people think it is - and so Van Gorder speaks for these constituents. You said, "if the city council adopts the resolution - there would be no change as this is a state issue..." Of course you're right. But, again, that's not the point. It's about equality, respresenting one's constituents, and looking to the future of Napa's business. (there are posts addressing these points in other NVR areas). You said, "you should run for an office where you can make a difference on gay rights." Again, missing the point - it comes from the people and it is in Napa's interest.

As Straight Talk said, "My greatest fear is to live in a world where such discussions are prohibited. " And that is my greatest fear as well. "

misfit wrote on Mar 16, 2009 9:18 PM:

" jmo...Glad I could make you laugh! I followed my true love here. Can't blame me for that, can ya? "

reneefannin wrote on Mar 16, 2009 9:42 PM:

" In 20 years, when gay marriage is legal and the hateful people who scream their insults are not allowed to stage their fight in a public forum, we may not remember Mr. Van Gorder for doing the right moral thing. I hope we do. By that time, it will be unheard of to think that this was simply a difference of opinion ( kind of like racism used to be) We will certainly remember the faces of those who cowered in the face of controversy...who did not stand up for our equality...who went home and slept safe in their beds, knowing that their marriages were safe, blessed to have been born heterosexual, consoling themselves with the thought that they voted No on 8 and that was enough.... The majority of Napa voters clearly said that Prop 8 was wrong. Who do you represent Napa City Council? Who do you represent? I am sure that you know that we know that your cowardly stance of this "not being a city issue" is fear. I have researched and the city has taken a stand on other social issues, even at times "urging the congress of the United States". You can take a stand. It is clearly a city issue when a segment of that city's citizens rights are at stake. Be honest. Speak the words. You can , but you won't..... and remember.".the hottest places in hell......" ..As you lie down tonight, thank your God that you don't have to worry about your own rights...and sleep tight in your decision to ignore us and say that we and our rights are not even important enough for a vote. In peace, in sadness and in hopes for a better tomorrow....... "

reneefannin wrote on Mar 16, 2009 9:47 PM:

" By the way, I will mow the grass and pull the weeds form the concrete. I will work on the potholes, I will dig ditches, if I can just protect my marriage rights and my family. We really are not asking for that much.......and we are very willing to give back tenfold..... "

misfit wrote on Mar 16, 2009 10:06 PM:

" Paddy and jmo...Actually, I hear there are some real conservatives living in those Berkeley hills. "

zoop wrote on Mar 16, 2009 10:46 PM:

" Thank you for putting it so eloquently Renee.

As a white, privileged, heterosexual woman, I will never know the discrimination that others have faced.

But I can only imagine how ashamed the members of the council will feel in the coming years when they look back on their votes tomorrow. "

jmo wrote on Mar 16, 2009 11:37 PM:

" Ok misfit I'll let you slide on that one.
Conservatives in Berkeley...ya just like farms in Berkelely. -:) "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 17, 2009 12:44 AM:

" Sorry, Mr. Ross.

I was reading the poll results at the time I wrote my post, not the results in the article.

I apologize for trying to be current. It doesn't usually happed to me.

Obviously, neither does 'spullcheck'. "

Rick wrote on Mar 17, 2009 10:44 AM:

" Misfit- Actually, this should never have been brought to the court in the first place. The vote was a corrective of the court's error. The legitimate way to affect public policy is through the legislature and failing that, the initiative process. And that is still the proper approach. "

Napamama wrote on Mar 17, 2009 11:35 AM:

" Let's be honest, by remaining silent, it's about protecting your job and not losing votes.

Whether you believe in God or karma, I believe we will all have to answer for our actions (or lack thereof!) someday. "

Farmgirl wrote on Mar 17, 2009 2:29 PM:

" So what happened at the meeting? All this buildup and nothing the next day! "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Mar 17, 2009 3:03 PM:

" farmgirl:
The article states the discussion does not begin until 3:30 p.m. It is now 3 p.m. so we can't update you on something that has yet to take place.
--Dan "

Farmgirl wrote on Mar 17, 2009 3:55 PM:

" Dan - Sorry - thought it was yesterday. Thanks. "

Raven wrote on Mar 17, 2009 6:32 PM:

" Rick...you denying someone the right to seek a redress of their grievances in the courts...if the court thought there was not legitimate reason for bringing the suit, they would not have agreed to hear it. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 18, 2009 12:24 AM:

" reneefannin wrote "In 20 years, when gay marriage is legal and the hateful people who scream their insults are not allowed to stage their fight in a public forum..."

Shades of 1984! You mean the First Amendment will have been repealed?
Your intemperate characterization of those who oppose your viewpoint is all too typical of the radical left. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 18, 2009 12:31 AM:

" Marshamarsha wrote :" Before you bash or support him, I'd suggest that you imagine this resolution was about gun possesion, abortion, prayer in our schools, whatever."

If you mean state level issues, none of those topics is within the proper purview of the City Council. If my pet issue loses at the polls, I won't badger the city council for a declaration. It's all about playing fair and within the rules. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 18, 2009 12:38 AM:

" abouttime wrote "Van Gorder stood up for what he believes in. It's a shame that the other Council members can't do the same."

No, the shame is in being inappropriate and in political grandstanding. If Van Gorder was an old time Mormon, would you want him preaching to the City Council about the rightness of polygamy? "

Rick wrote on Mar 18, 2009 9:42 AM:

" Raven - Changing the definition of marriage is not a 'grievance' but a fundamental alteration of our society. To try to put this over through a court case shows a profound disrespect for the body politic and a complete failure to appreciate the priceless political heritage Americans, out of all the people on the earth, have recieved. "

Raven wrote on Mar 18, 2009 11:49 AM:

" Rick...would you be so complacent if a fundamental right of yours was taken away? The ability to speak out on any issue is the key to the body politic Rick and anyone who tries to stifle that discussion is doing it a disservice. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 18, 2009 12:39 PM:

" Raven wrote: "anyone who tries to stifle that discussion is doing it a disservice."

Discussion is good, in the proper venue. How would you feel if one of the city council members insisted on bringing up the topic of abortion, or the war in Afghanistan? "

Raven wrote on Mar 18, 2009 10:37 PM:

" and who decides what the proper venue is JR?....in a democracy, I would think the city council is a great place for the discussion but time after time, the proponents of Prop 8 have shouted out that they want no discussion at time at any venue. If you believe that your cause is truly just, what are you afraid of? "

Rick wrote on Mar 18, 2009 11:18 PM:

" Raven- No one's fundamental rights have been taken away. Every adult has the same right to marry, but marriage is a particular thing and always has been. Apples are not oranges. And I haven't noticed any complaints about speaking out. We all value freedom of speech, and we're doing it, right? My complaint is with the passing of a city political resolution regarding a non-city issue, that misrepresents my views. That is a violation of freedom of speech. We haven't given this responsibility to the city, and therefore the only responsible position they could take was to set it aside, regardless of their personal views. That is what they did. I frankly can't see why it is hard to understand that the city should not be making political statements about issues that cannot be resolved at the city level. "

Raven wrote on Mar 19, 2009 9:10 AM:

" rick...the state supreme court in may said marriage was a fundamental right for all.....in Nov Prop 8 passed, removing the right from same sex couples....so yes, a fundamental right was taken away.

and Reread these threads...they are full of people saying the council shouldn't even discuss this, how is that not stifling of free speech.

By your standard, any thing the city passes that you don't agree with is a violation of your right to freedom of speech. As for the responsibility given the city council, you have given those members the ability to speak on behalf of the voters they represent, so yeah, that does give them the right to address the issue. And when does speaking out against bigotry something reserved for a special group of people?

I hope that the next time the city issues a proclamation congratulating or recognizing anyone for their efforts outside Napa, you all speak out against the city for taking actions on issues it cannot resolve.

But again, if the cause is so just, why are so many people afraid to let a discussion about it take place, at any venue? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 19, 2009 10:44 AM:

" Rick. This is a community health issue. Removal of the right to marry harms members of the community, while granting equality harms no one, while promoting stable relationships which strengthen the community.

Tradition (and hopefully you've seen by now how that has changed and has even included same sex couples) is no justification for harming community health.

"Prejudice and discrimination have social and personal impact. On the social level, prejudice and discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are reflected in the everyday stereotypes of members of these groups. These stereotypes persist even though they are not supported by evidence, and they are often used to excuse unequal treatment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. For example, limitations on job opportunities, parenting, and relationship recognition are often justified by stereotypic assumptions about lesbian, gay, and bisexual people." (APA) "

Raven wrote on Mar 19, 2009 7:23 PM:

" and now the New Hampshire and Vermont legislatures are looking at passing same sex marriage..the times they are a changing.. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 19, 2009 9:11 PM:

" JR, you said, "It's all about playing fair and within the rules. ' This wouldn't be the great country it is if we all "played by the rules" and colored within the lines. Martiin Luther King, JFK, Henry Ford, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B Anthony - all were risk takers, visionaries, and never settled for the status quo. You can't quiet the voice of the disenfranchised, regardless of whether you believe they are or are not - it's just a matter of time. "

Rick wrote on Mar 19, 2009 9:50 PM:

" Raven - You have some imaginative interpretations of my "standards". Just keep in mind that the city council is not a discussion club, but that doesn't mean there isn't one somewhere. "

Napagrrl wrote on Mar 19, 2009 10:23 PM:

" So if the city council suggests, say, giving a "key to the city" to a person or a group they believe are deserving of it (say a local olympian or actor who won some amazing award or high school team which just won the coveted State tourney), will you same people who oppose gay marriage be saying that the city council should worry about traffic and sidewalks and such? "

Raven wrote on Mar 19, 2009 10:54 PM:

" then what about the subject frightens you Rick, so much that you don't want it discussed? "

John Richards wrote on Mar 20, 2009 12:02 AM:

" " So if the city council suggests, say, giving a "key to the city" to a person or a group..."

Giving out keys to the city is a recognized mayoral or city council function. I don't have a problem with it.
What other venue would do it? "

Raven wrote on Mar 20, 2009 11:19 AM:

" where does it say that the city council should do that, JR...and shouldn't they be focused on fixing potholes and the like? "

John Richards wrote on Mar 20, 2009 2:52 PM:

" There must be an official write-up some place that describes the duties of the mayor and city council members. I don't have it at my fingertips, but I'm sure that handing out keys to the city is one of those duties. Like I said, who else would do that task? Certainly not the state. Anti Prop 8 folks need to realize that there is a distinction between city matters and state matters, hard as that concept may be to comprehend for them... "

Raven wrote on Mar 20, 2009 7:22 PM:

" JR...the duties are usually listed in the city's charter....but in California.....there is almost no limit as to what a city council can address.... "

John Richards wrote on Mar 20, 2009 7:36 PM:

" What the city council can address, and what is prudent for them to address, are two different things. "

Raven wrote on Mar 20, 2009 11:31 PM:

" ahh...so there is no limit to what they can talk about? "

Verdadero wrote on Mar 21, 2009 8:30 AM:

" I just want everyone in Napa to know that the actions of their elected representatives do have an impact on them financially. Now that your elected officials have declared that they, speaking for all of Napa, are against equal rights for everyone and that Napa is essentially a bigoted city, people who are in favor of equal rights will no longer be supporting any businesses located within the city limits of Napa. This is not a threat, it is simply a fact of life that people do not want to support bigotry in any form. So congratulations to your City Council on ensuring that the businesses of Napa will have less cash this year due to the declaration of their City Council in support of bigotry. "

Rick wrote on Mar 21, 2009 8:46 AM:

" Isn't there a coffeehouse in town? "

winewoman wrote on Mar 21, 2009 10:23 AM:

" Verdadero - yep, but that's a hard concept to comprehend for some folks. "

coigue wrote on Mar 21, 2009 12:47 PM:

" This is going to have an impact on tourism. Juliana Inman was quote by the SF chron that gay people (and their allies) are welcome to vacation elsewhere if they don't like it.

Also, has the council ever expressed support for the troops, or for immigrant rights, or an other non-binding issue? I think the answer is probably yes and I know a hedge when I see one. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 21, 2009 2:17 PM:

" Gasp! Oh, no she didn't! We need to get her out of her position if that is true. That is just outrageous. Is that true, Ms Inman? "

Raven wrote on Mar 21, 2009 5:25 PM:

" and for those who want marriage to make sure we procreate...new study...40 percent of the babies in the US are born to unmarried mothers... "

arnie wrote on Mar 22, 2009 9:49 PM:

" There are more than 600 comments on the article about this resolution in the blogs of the SF Chronicle. Very few are positive to Napa, or the choice of the majority of the City Council. Great publicity. "

misfit wrote on Mar 23, 2009 6:59 AM:

" arnie...That will just make these people more proud of themselves. They will only see themselves as unique in some way.
Maybe we won't need so many hotels or vacation homes here now.
Good job Inman! NOT! "

misfit wrote on Mar 23, 2009 7:28 AM:

" From the SFGate comments:

Here are the email addresses of the city's elected officials: jkrider@cityofnapa.org; jinman@cityofnapa.org; pmott@cityofnapa.org; mvangorder@cityofnapa.org; jtechel@cityofnapa.org. AND HERE are the email addresses of the City of Napa Chamber of Commerce: kate@napachamber.com; lisa@napachamber.com; katherine@napachamber.com; carylc@pacbell.net. I invite everyone of conscience to write them and let them know what the fruit of their discrimination is going to cost their city. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 23, 2009 12:50 PM:

" arnie wrote: "... more than 600 comments on the article about this resolution in the blogs of the SF Chronicle. Very few are positive to Napa..."

So what? What would you expect from San Francisco, perhaps one of the most gay-oriented cities in the country? I consider it a badge of honor to be bad-mouthed by San Franciscans. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 23, 2009 12:59 PM:

" "I invite everyone of conscience to write them and let them know what the fruit of their discrimination is going to cost their city."

Amazing. No actual harm has come to the gay community from the city council's refusal to take a political stance on Prop 8, yet they are threatening boycott of anyone who doesn't actively support the gay agenda! Never mind that the majority of state voters have spoken, and soon the Supreme Court. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 23, 2009 1:01 PM:

" Raven wrote: "...40 percent of the babies in the US are born to unmarried mothers... "

Yep. All the more a sign that morals are breaking down all over. Is the answer to sin to commit more sins? "

John Richards wrote on Mar 23, 2009 1:10 PM:

" Raven wrote: "" ahh...so there is no limit to what they can talk about?"

Anyone can talk about anything. However, the city council in their official meetings had better stick to things that are the city's business, or else they are likely to raise the ire of a majority of voters who elected them to office. I don't want my city representatives wasting official time discussing such off-topic things as the war in Iraq. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 23, 2009 1:20 PM:

" Raven wrote: " the proponents of Prop 8 have shouted out that they want no discussion at time at any venue."

I have no idea where you are getting that from. Especially in the months prior to November 4th, and for weeks afterwards, there was plenty of discussion, especially in this forum. But now the voters have spoken, and the matter is in the hands of the state Supreme Court. For the City Council to begin discussing that topic now would not only be untimely but also inappropriate. Everything has a time and place. "

Raven wrote on Mar 23, 2009 2:28 PM:

" JR...read these posts since Van Gorder made his announcement...then say that they were open to a honest discussion...there is never a time and place where the discussion of inequality is out of place....and where better to have that discussions but at the lowest levels of our government.

as for the the birth rates...one of the arguments tossed about is how marriage is critical to procreation....well with 40 percent not married I would say it aint as critical as you would have us believe...btw...who said the births were part of any sinning?

then there is the no harm idea....preventing a couple from marrying does no harm? Preventing some one from exercising a fundamental right does no harm?

Why are you surprised that people, and that will include all people not just homosexuals, don't want to spend money in a city that doesn't want to discuss equal treatment for them? Would you want to spend your money in a town that didn't think enough of you that they would even discuss your equal treatment under the law? Where your badge of honor proud, JR. "

misfit wrote on Mar 23, 2009 4:35 PM:

" John Richards for Pope! "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 23, 2009 7:09 PM:

" And in case you missed it, this is a local concern because it is a community health issue:

Dr. Chris Beyrer, the founder and director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health and Human Rights, said denying same sex couples the right to marry harms community health:``We know for certain that lesbian and gay individuals suffer harm to their physical and psychological health, and to their relationships and quality of life, as result of the shame, isolation and stigma accrued from their social and legal disenfranchisement." "

winewoman wrote on Mar 24, 2009 8:01 AM:

" JR said, "So what? What would you expect from San Francisco, perhaps one of the most gay-oriented cities in the country? I consider it a badge of honor to be bad-mouthed by San Franciscans. " Well, perhaps that's ok in the silo universe where you live, JR, but don't expect the world to conform to your rigid way of thinking. Perhaps you can tell us how you propose to keep revenue flowing during our current economic situation in this tourist based city - you know, considering you're in favor of alientating a good chunk of the city's customer base. Good relations and partnerships with other cities is a good thing, particularly when they are the financial, cultural, and transportation center of a region of more than 7 million people. I don't need to tell you that household income and median family income is higher (significantly) that the national average and SF is home to on of the top-five medical schools in the U.S and and also operates the UCSF Medical Center, ranked among the top 10 hospitals in the US. They are also home to is the oldest law school in California which claims more judges on the state bench than any other institution. The City of SF is heads and shoulders about this little city in acclaims and accomplishments - and yet you stick your nose in the air and proudly proclaim "so what". It's a shame, really, and shows that this kind of thinking is still around. I'm embarrassed for you and for this town that I care so much about. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 24, 2009 2:18 PM:

" winewoman wrote: "... to keep revenue flowing during our current economic situation in this tourist based city..."

It remains to be seen if the position taken by the city council will have any negative financial effect. I think not. After all, those who favor gay marriage represent only a minority of American tourists, considering that 48 states are opposed to gay marriage. So you think the majority of voters in those 48 states represent the "silo" mentality? Now who's sticking her nose in the air???
Bring on the silos and the straight-shooting Americans they represent! "

winewoman wrote on Mar 24, 2009 3:45 PM:

" "those who favor gay marriage represent only a minority of American tourists" Says who? I study this for a living, JR - unless you have some research and statistics to prove it - my research says something very different. I'm worried that you're willing to risk something that doesn't even belong to you on something that "remains to be seen". Again, bad business. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 25, 2009 12:39 PM:

" As I said, we will have to wait and see whether Napa's tourist business is affected. I would have thought that intelligent gays would pay more attention to how Napa residents actually voted as opposed to the non-action of a couple of city council reps.

Had Van Gorder kept his mouth shut, none of this snowball chain reaction would have happened. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 25, 2009 2:09 PM:

" Wrong. "Wait and see" is not effective or acceptable business strategy, JR. And, once again, Napa residents voted against Prop 8. Van Gorder didn't start this chain reaction - it was well on it's way. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 26, 2009 8:29 PM:

" winewoman wrote: "Van Gorder didn't start this chain reaction - it was well on it's [sic] way."

Do enlighten me. What chain reaction was well on its way before Van Gorder stirred the pot? "

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 || Parade Magazine
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy