NVR Logo
Home » News » Local
Napa won't enter same-sex marriage debate
Council hears out gay rights supporters, but that’s all
Wednesday, March 18, 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
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
The public testimony on behalf of gay marriage was impassioned at Napa City Hall Tuesday afternoon, but failed to win any new City Council support.

Only Councilman Mark van Gorder supported a city resolution endorsing the right of anyone, regardless of gender, to marry.
In keeping with views stated before the meeting, Mayor Jill Techel and Councilmen Peter Mott and Jim Krider declined to second van Gorder’s motion. This hot-button social issue was not proper city business, they said.

Councilwoman Juliana Inman was not present.
Before a room full of supporters, two dozen speakers asked the council to take a stand for equal marriage rights. Although this is a divisive issue, they said, a majority of Napa voters last November opposed Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.

“This is a chance to be on the right side of history,” said local resident Victor Davis.
“Separate but equal doesn’t work,” said J.E. Buckingham, a Napa High School teacher and coordinator of the campus Gay Straight Alliance. The council can strike a blow against discrimination, she said.

“We are your teachers, we are the ones who save your lives at Queen of the Valley, we are the ones who sell you your houses,” said Judy Naimo, a local real estate agent.

“I urge you to pass this resolution and help me give my gay son the same right to marriage and freedom from bigotry that all of you enjoy,” John Speck said.

Outside city purview

Not a single dissenting opinion was voiced during more than an hour of public testimony, creating the possibility that council opposition to taking on an explosive social issue might have softened.

It hadn’t.

Mayor Techel thanked everyone for coming and “telling your story,” but stuck by her earlier opinion that this was a state issue. A legal challenge to Proposition 8 was argued before the California Supreme Court this month, and a ruling is expected before summer.

Mott said he appreciated the crowd’s “passion and resolve,” but said same-sex marriage should be resolved by the state Legislature, the courts and at the ballot box.

“I do not feel it’s an issue I can speak to at the council level because I believe it is outside the purview of city government and our jurisdiction,” Mott said.

Krider rejected the argument that same-sex marriage was all about discrimination. As an elected leader, Krider said it was his responsibility to represent all Napans, including those who believe same-sex marriage is wrong.

“It has to be voted on by the state,” he said. “Your passion should be taken to Sacramento.”

Contrary to his fellow council members, van Gorder said a vote for marriage equality seemed as much a matter of council business as the routine items that normally fill a council agenda.

Several gay and lesbian city residents had asked him to float a same-sex marriage resolution before the council, van Gorder said. They hoped the resolution would influence the state Supreme Court.

Van Gorder said he decided to scale back the scope of the request, making it a simple declaration that everyone should be able to marry.

While attending Santa Rosa Junior College in the 1980s, van Gorder said, he was with a group of gays who were attacked by men with baseball bats. His friends received broken ribs, arms and legs, while he got a bloodied face.

“That’s my personal reason” for the resolution, van Gorder said. “I know about the discrimination. I know about the hatred. I know about the attacks.”

“Mark for mayor,” a voice shouted.

“You didn’t hear us,” yelled another.
82 comment(s)

John Richards wrote on Mar 18, 2009 12:15 AM:

" Sanity prevailed. Thank you, City Council. "

Hear Ye wrote on Mar 18, 2009 12:15 AM:

" I think the only shame is that the other coucil members didn't have the spine to state where they stand on the issue. "

Calistoga_Tony wrote on Mar 18, 2009 1:18 AM:

" I'm tired of hearing about this. Why do gays and their supporters want this? What will it do? Nothing, it will only make a few people feel better. I don't want my local city government wasting time with these matters when they can't change state law.

Gay marriage is not a right. It is not a civil right, it is not about hatred. Gays make it about hate. They have to stop crying wolf.

Where is the tolerance and acceptance? I hear the gays screaming that all the time. They need to tolerate and accept that some people are against gay marriage. It's an oxymoron, and there really isn't such a thing as gay marriage. It's a union between a man and a woman.

Stop bringing up the constitution that you all love to spit on when it comes to kicking out illegals, creating a real border, my gun rights, the right of parents to be notified when their 14 year old is going to get an abortion.

Where are the gays then? Nowhere. Mention gay marriage, and all of a sudden all the left wingers are lawyers. I'm tired of the gay, gay, gay, issues. Backlash will be the only outcome. Even the illegals figured out when to stop with all the marches, when will the left figure it out? "

XMAN wrote on Mar 18, 2009 2:14 AM:

" If two gay people wish to form a civil union between themselves, there is nothing to stop them. It is their inalienable right to do so, always has been. If gay persons and others wish to encroach upon on the rights of others to preserve marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman, then they have no such right.
It can only be obtained by the consent of society. Any other means, such as the dictates of a court, would be literally cramming it down societies' throats and oppressive to the sensibilities of the majority of our citizens who all voted in favor of proposition 8. Gay supporters can make all the noise they want to, that is their right in a free society, but if issues are to be resolved by the operation of law, that is how they must be resolved. Not by anarchy. I'm certain that if the gay supporters can convince enough people to support them, they will eventually gain sufficient support to eventually get their way. But, it must be done by due process and not by coersive methods. "

REPUBLICANKID wrote on Mar 18, 2009 6:14 AM:

" Good it was a wast of time. The voters have spoke "

Normbc9 wrote on Mar 18, 2009 6:16 AM:

" This question is now being decided by the State Supreme Court. What role does the City Council play in this when the Court hasn't issued a decision? I can see both sides of the question but actions at this level will not change anything at this point in time. This was a good open discussion that will have to wait until another time in another forum. "

cedwardswine wrote on Mar 18, 2009 6:22 AM:

" Typical spineless lack of foward thinking by the Napa City Council. Great heroic attempt Mark. Ms Tichel, Mr Mott, Mr Krider when the new luxury hotels open downtown Napa city center and the rooms are vacant, shops are wondering where the dollars are. Drive to Guerneville, Windsor, San Francisco or Berkerly where gays are welcome, goverment supportive and gay dollars are supporting those that support us. Gay dollars are 55 Billion in disposal income used for travel and entertainment. Again Napa will miss yet another opprtunity to profit due to short sighted non progressive values and lack of leadership. As the economy shrinks, more businesses layoff employees and no dollars are received in hotel taxes from those gay folks to fix your roadway potholes. Remember your silence ours will be remembered by the lost revenue opportunity to this city. "

common sense wrote on Mar 18, 2009 6:23 AM:

" Yay!!! Common sense prevails!!! Don't see that too often! "

Paddy wrote on Mar 18, 2009 7:10 AM:

" Thank you City Council for standing up to these bullies. The nastiness of these anti-8 supporters is one of the reasons the majority of CA has maintained that marriage is between a man and woman. They don't understand that the majority of Americans don't want them to take away the sanctity of this bond.

We're sick of them pushing this gay/lesbian/bisexual agenda down our throats...This issue certainly has no place in the City Council! Let them do their job. That doesn't include pandering to them. And Mark Van Gorder should be ready to move on... "

Reneefannin wrote on Mar 18, 2009 7:20 AM:

" Fair coverage, Courtney. You write well when you put your opinions to the side. "

Raven wrote on Mar 18, 2009 7:25 AM:

" The council's action doesnt surprise me, moral couarge has never been a hallmark of this city council...

gee Tony, why do heterosexuals want equal rights.....and yes, the supreme court has said it is a right and Prop 8 does nothing to change that, it merely prevenst that right from being exercised. Tell us just how good you would feel is some of your neighbors got together and took away a right you had, because they disapproved...it is nice to be so cavalier about someone else'f life.

Tolerance and acceptance? Why do you complain about homosexuals not showing any when you fail to do so toward them? It is easy to demand tolerance when you are a majority, the true test of tolerance is how you act towards those who don't have the power and don't agree with you.

And it seems to me that those who are using their majority status to strip rights away from a minority, those are the ones who are spitting upon the constitution.

Too bad you are tired because the issue isn't going away...and the council should remember next election that a majority of Napans disagreed with them and voted to defeat prop 8.... "

antipc wrote on Mar 18, 2009 7:32 AM:

" Mark chose the wrong venue to promote an agenda.

Common sense in this day & age is a rarity in government. So kudos to the other Councilpersons for voting correctly on his issue.

Why does NHS have a Gay Straight Alliance? Some sort of recruitment tool? "

JustAnotherManicMonday wrote on Mar 18, 2009 7:38 AM:

" It's time to think about the economy, not about gay marriage. Besides it's a state issue, not for local city government. "

marine1/1 wrote on Mar 18, 2009 8:11 AM:

" This issue was NOT proper city business and I am glad that majority of the City Council including the Mayor stated that. It is also not the proper business of the courts either. It's the proper business of all registered VOTERS who have spoken not once but twice on this issue. Van Gorder looked like a fool. "

Rocketman wrote on Mar 18, 2009 8:15 AM:

" This is a statewide issue and should be handled as such. Mott and Krider and for that matter Techel, did the right thing. In listening to most all of the comments at the meeting, the underlining theme was issues of discrimination, equal rights, freedom from bigotry. Most of the proponents of Prop 8 talk about tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman. If gay marriage is going to be allowed, then plural marriage should be allowed also. Why discriminate against these folks if what we are talking about truly is discrimination and bigotry and changing a tradition that has been established for years. "

sicksense wrote on Mar 18, 2009 8:35 AM:

" I'm glad they DID have the spine! Great job! "

melimop wrote on Mar 18, 2009 9:22 AM:

" The better question is why do people and city council CARE SO MUCH to not let it happen??? I'm not even gay and I think "you people" are the reason it's such a huge issue right now... not the gay community. Not trying to be rude, but there is simply two sides/opinions to every story. Then to watch how Democrats - typically those who support social equality - vote in an African American president, but can't just let two men get married. "

mgreene wrote on Mar 18, 2009 9:24 AM:

" I agree with Calistoga_Tony

Hooray for having a spine to state where you (and the voters) stand!!

Democracy has spoken! TWICE!!

Let it go! The gays still have domestic partnership.

"A rose by any other name..." "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 18, 2009 9:29 AM:

" Community health is a local as well as a state, national and even international issue. Discrimination harms everyone.

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." "

Rick wrote on Mar 18, 2009 9:30 AM:

" What we're seeing here is multiculturalism in action - the attempt to take irreconcilable moral and political beliefs and mix 'em all together. It's lovely, isn't it? "

coigue wrote on Mar 18, 2009 9:41 AM:

" Hooray for Mark. Shame on the others, you have disappointed friends and constituents. ....and where was Juliana Inman? "

jenny99 wrote on Mar 18, 2009 9:50 AM:

" Doesn't the city issue marriage licenses? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 18, 2009 9:59 AM:

" Tony. Your assertion that gay people "spit on" the constitution is as misinformed as it is insulting. Not all gay people are liberal, and even liberals believe in the constitution. Liberal comes from the word liberty, which means freedom. While the left has tried to demonize the word, with a fair amount of success, it is a noble idea our country was founded upon. True conservatives believe in freedom from government restrictions. It is the social conservatives who want to use the law as a weapon to force others to conform to their belief systems.

As has been explained over and over, case law has firmly established marriage as a fundamental right. Just as you are tired of hearing about this, gay people and their supporters are tired of fighting for equal rights. But as Martin Luther King said: "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

The threat of a "backlash" implies those who support equality will change their minds. The reality is, it may bring out those who are quiet about their prejudice, but it won't instill prejudice in those who don't already have it. History has shown prejudice can be overcome with information, but information is not conveyed by being silent. As much as I would like to focus on other things, laws that restrict equality must be opposed to be defeated. Tolerance and acceptance doesn't mean tolerating legal discrimination. "

HaveFaith wrote on Mar 18, 2009 10:00 AM:

" Thank you Napa City Counsel. The people voted and this is a done deal.

Also, well said Calistoga_Tony!!! "

Raven wrote on Mar 18, 2009 10:04 AM:

" did anyone really expect the city council to show any moral courage on this issue? "

Rocketman wrote on Mar 18, 2009 10:26 AM:

" Raven...........I think the Council did........ "

Rick wrote on Mar 18, 2009 10:33 AM:

" "Not a single dissenting opinion was voiced during more than an hour of public testimony." Well, who in the world can meet at 3:30 on a work day?? So, I submitted my comments to the council in writing. And Raven, the council showed plenty of moral courage by confining themselves to their proper role when asked to abuse the political prerogatives of their constituents. "

sicksense wrote on Mar 18, 2009 10:34 AM:

" From my view they showed great moral courage and I applaud them for not caving in to the pressure. "

cab e-girl wrote on Mar 18, 2009 10:39 AM:

" Thank you City Council for not encouraing bullies forcing their will on the majority of the citizens of this state. This is not a City of Napa issue unless they choose it to be. A wise choice in this climate. "

littlered56 wrote on Mar 18, 2009 10:44 AM:

" Thank You Mark! It is good to know there are people who think outside the box.
I remember all too well how many Napans reacted to MLK back in the 60's.
It is sad the council did not just pass a resolution saying equal under the law for "everyone".
The day will come when same sex marriages are allowed under the law, it is only a matter of time.
Growing up in Napa in the 50's I assure you no one ever thought a black man could ever get elected president... "

napanativegirl wrote on Mar 18, 2009 10:55 AM:

" Calistoga_Tony for Governor! California is going down the drain, its embarassing. We need better people in office to stop the BULLIES and listen to VOTES. "

valleylocal wrote on Mar 18, 2009 11:03 AM:

" I applaud Mark VanGorder's effort and am unfortunately not surprised in the City Council's old school, backwoods response. Typical - keep Napa in the dark ages and don't stick their neck out for anything progressive. "

Rocketman wrote on Mar 18, 2009 11:04 AM:

" It is not an equality issue........never has been.....it's the difinition of marriage issue. "

funnyme wrote on Mar 18, 2009 11:04 AM:

" napanativegirl,
I second that motion...Amen! "

John Richards wrote on Mar 18, 2009 11:21 AM:

" Raven wrote " The council's action doesnt surprise me, moral couarge has never been a hallmark of this city council."

Actually, it took a bit of political courage to publicly indicate that the Council will not be endorsing what the majority of Napans voted for. Their moral sense of duty won out, since this was not an issue under city purview. How would you like it if the city council decided to waste time on discussing the topic of abortion? "

Raven wrote on Mar 18, 2009 11:44 AM:

" If the right to abortion was being denied to a group of citizens in Napa....then I would say the council should speak out.

There is no subject that is so dangerous it cannot be talked about and where better than the city council. "

jmo wrote on Mar 18, 2009 12:25 PM:

" Thank you City Council for getting this one right. It was not proper city business and you stood tall with great spine and did not pander, as Mark did, to the gay community.
Can we get back to true city business and move forward on a plan to fix the pot holes.

The statement "They hoped the resolution would influence the state Supreme Court"; oh please how naive. If that were the case the court would have simply ruled in favor of the biggest resolution …last November’s vote.
The only thing the court should be influenced by is the law and only the law. "

Angelina Gervasio wrote on Mar 18, 2009 12:58 PM:

" tony-
:) :) :) :) awesome comment. :) :) :) :)

napanativegirl-
Forget governor, Calistoga Tony for PREZ! "

Vercingetorex wrote on Mar 18, 2009 1:12 PM:

" Thank you Napa City Council for not going the way of Berkeley or San Francisco.
I wasn't aware we elected people to this board to make social commentary, no matter how well meaning some people find it. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 18, 2009 1:23 PM:

" Nothing dies so hard, or rallies so often as intolerance." - Henry Ward Beecher "

erinyes wrote on Mar 18, 2009 2:05 PM:

" I read the above and I feel sad.

Did any of you who are commenting actually watch this Council meeting? If you had, you surely would have witnessed: 1) Councilwoman Inman was absent due to "medical" reasons; 2) Mayor Techel didn't speak regarding this (avoiding the issue to ensure her next election?) 3) and the reasoning used by councilmen Mott & Krider for silence did not make sense to me.

It was stated by Coucilman Krider that those who voted for Prop. 8 should be supported. Where would Krider and Mott stand if inter-racial marriage was still illegal? How would they vote if voting rights for women and non-whites was still illegal in our "democracy?" Are these qualities desired in elected officials?

Or would Mayor Techel and Councilwoman Inman still stay silent if their rights to BE mayor, own land, and to vote, was revoked by popular vote?

Civil Rights should never be placed up for mob vote.

America stands for freedom. And those opposed to Proposition 8 won't stay silent or stop until equality is realized for everyone.

I praise Councilman Van Gorder for his courage and humanity in presenting this resolution. Well Done. Napa is proud of you Mark.

At the next election, vote out this council and elect Mark Von Gorder for mayor.

Thank You. "

Napagrrl wrote on Mar 18, 2009 2:19 PM:

" C-Tony, the people have voted on the abortion issue three times, yet it still bothers you that you can't control young women's bodies. Anti-gay marriage people keep saying, "The people have voted, get over it." Why can't you? You know you'll vote to disallow teenagers to choose what's right for them if given the chance again.

And, Rick, a photo in the paper shows there were at least 14 people speaking at the city council meeting. So when the article stated there were no dissenters, it means that all the people who showed up at 3:30 to voice their opinions were in support of the issue. "

littlered56 wrote on Mar 18, 2009 2:56 PM:

" Rocketman...you are ever so wrong...it is about 2 people being able to obtain a "legal" marriage license and be married and have all the legal rights of married people regardless of their sexuality.....it is all about equality under the law. "

ganeece wrote on Mar 18, 2009 5:00 PM:

" Napagrrl- no child has the right to marry without parental consent until the age of 18, why should they be able to have an abortion? "

JimClark wrote on Mar 18, 2009 5:46 PM:

" The People have spoken through the initiative process; only the people may alter or abolish it. Legislators and courts have absolutely NO place in that process. If there is a strong argument, create another initiative nex election cycle; good luck. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Mar 18, 2009 6:15 PM:

" The First Amendment to the US Constitution says that the freedom of the people to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances is as sacrosanct as the the freedom of the press and religion.

The First Amendment does not require that American citizens show up only where the government wants them to show up or drop it when some politicians say so.

The first amendment doesn't require them to show up at the state house if they think their city council should lend an ear.

The mayor and city council embarrassed themselves last night.

The only way to get gays and lesbians to go back home legally is to give them redress of grievances.

A non-binding resolution with a general purpose message about respecting the civil rights of every American would have gone a long way towards making peace.

That didn't happen.

I wasn't there, because I was celebrating St. Paddy's Day over at the Oxbow.

The disappointed citizens who were brushed off last night went over to Taylor's Refresher and... vowed that no incumbent mayor or city council member will run unopposed again.

Nice work, gang!

~Ruff "

Napagrrl wrote on Mar 18, 2009 6:38 PM:

" Ganeece, the point I was trying to make is that "the people" have voted to allow minor women to undergo abortions if they choose - three times.

Many of you who are anti-gay marriage keep saying, "The people have voted twice, it's time to move on."

Well, most of the anti-gay marriage opponents are also "we need parental consent" people (I know not all!) , yet you keep voting on the abortion issue hoping for a different result. Do you not get it?

Further, I'm not going to debate the whole abortion thing again; it's been stated and restated and I won't change anyone's mind, nor will anyone change mine. "

gwen wrote on Mar 18, 2009 8:21 PM:

" Amen, erinyes.

Krider's statements kill me. "Krider said it was his responsibility to represent all Napans, including those who believe same-sex marriage is wrong." So he will never vote for anything or give his opinion on anything again, because he has to represent everyone? If anyone disagrees, will he abstain? He's got to represent them all, right?

These are not qualities I look for in a "leader."

It is a very sad day in Napa. "

savenapa wrote on Mar 18, 2009 8:21 PM:

" Thank you city council for refusing to add to the polarization. You made a mature and logical choice.

Note- someone was quoted in the article saying "we are your teachers and we are those that save lives at Queen of the Valley".

It scares me to death to think you might be teaching my kids. I've got 4 of them so my ear is to the asphalt on this one. Watch what you say to them in your indoctrination attempts because if you go outside of ONLY what the curriculum allows the school board will get a call from me with your name attached to my concern. Also, let it be known that there are many that save lives at the Queen of the Valley that do not share your passion. Please stop attempting to speak for me in your blanket statements. I can speak for myself thank you.

I would have liked to have been there to share some of my thoughts. However, some of us see our profession as taking priority over a misplaced pursuit. "

carol whichard wrote on Mar 18, 2009 8:36 PM:

" Shame on this City Council for their lack of courage. The lack of leadership is astounding! "

littlered56 wrote on Mar 18, 2009 8:58 PM:

" I could be wrong but I suspect this entire matter will one day be a matter before the Suprem Court of the United States...only time will tell "

zist707 wrote on Mar 18, 2009 9:42 PM:

" antipc... GSA a recruitment tool?
ok, I respect and understand how you might have different views on homosexuality than I do but seariously. Are people still holding on the the believe that homosexuals "recruit"?
To answer your question- no, it is not a "recruitment" tool.
I am the president of a GSA club and I'll be the first to tell you that is not the reason a high school has one.
A gay straight alliance is started to create a safe space for students to communicate their feelings about the issue. It's a place where they can go and feel like they are accepted. And it is not just for the LGBT students. It's also for straight students that want to be there and support their friends or that have family members who are also LGBT.
Believe what you want but please get the idea out of your head that there is any "recruitment" going on. "

Raven wrote on Mar 18, 2009 10:34 PM:

" "It scares me to death to think you might be teaching my kids. I've got 4 of them so my ear is to the asphalt on this one. Watch what you say to them in your indoctrination attempts because if you go outside of ONLY what the curriculum allows the school board will get a call from me with your name attached to my concern."

savenapa...are you that afraid.....do you fear homosexuals that much? and when did seeking equal rights become a misplaced pursuit....? "

Raven wrote on Mar 18, 2009 10:39 PM:

" Heads up, prop Prop 8 folks, the New Hampshire and Vermont legislatures are both looking at bills that would legalize same sex marriage. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 19, 2009 9:40 AM:

" The only reasons for denying equality are based on negative stereotypes of gay people, and such denial inflicts harm on members of the community. This is a quote from the APA:


"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.

On an individual level, such prejudice and discrimination may also have negative consequences, especially if lesbian, gay, and bisexual people attempt to conceal or deny their sexual orientation. Although many lesbians and gay men learn to cope with the social stigma against homosexuality, this pattern of prejudice can have serious negative effects on health and well-being. Individuals and groups may have the impact of stigma reduced or worsened by other characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, religion, or disability. Some lesbian, gay, and bisexual people may face less of a stigma. For others, race, sex, religion, disability, or other characteristics may exacerbate the negative impact of prejudice and discrimination.

The widespread prejudice, discrimination, and violence to which lesbians and gay men are often subjected are significant mental health concerns. Sexual prejudice, sexual orientation discrimination, and antigay violence are major sources of stress for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Although social support is crucial in coping with stress, antigay attitudes and discrimination may make it difficult for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people to find such support." "

speakup wrote on Mar 19, 2009 1:36 PM:

" Of course Napa didn't enter this issue. This is a conservative county. Gays can't walk down the street holding hands without stares and jeers. This was an expected outcome. "

antipc wrote on Mar 19, 2009 1:56 PM:

" zist707,

Do you also meet with the Christian prayer group?

Nevermind, they're not allowed on campus. "

Paddy wrote on Mar 19, 2009 3:56 PM:

" The council did exactly what they were supposed to do. This is NOT city business; the proposition won in the STATE by popular vote...Get over it! "

newnapan wrote on Mar 19, 2009 5:46 PM:

" Speakup why worry about gays waking down our streets holding hands,I worry about getting jumped and killed for 10 dollars or stabbed out in front of a dinner.Let's get real "

savenapa wrote on Mar 19, 2009 6:18 PM:

" Raven-
Do not attempt to apply gay rhetoric to me. I am not "afraid" of gays, I fear for my children's ability to grow up in a society without having sex crammed down their throat at every corner. Nobody cares what you do in your bedroom. And I know of no other group that forces their preferences on everyone else. When was that last time you heard of the "BDSM victims of discrimination association? You don't because they don't find it necessary to make their sex life my business. I don’t go running around with a sandwich board strapped on that says “I’m straight and proud”, and if I did then I would hope to be silenced because I have no right opening the door for a parent to have to talk to a five year old about sex because they want to know what “straight” is. Personally I believe public topics of sexuality for a small child to grapple with is a form of molestation.

NVUSD is pretty much focused on state mandated curriculum. I have had other forms of "education" that a select few "educators" tried to pass off as multi-cultural mandates eliminated from my children's classrooms because I care enough to find out what is being taught and even implied. Teachers seem willing to stick to state mandates without going over the line, especially when everyone's jobs are hanging in the balance of the economy. For the most part I believe teachers want to do a good job and appear beyond reproach. Implications are always subject to scrutiny. "

antipc wrote on Mar 19, 2009 7:49 PM:

" equal,

Your physc evaluation may give you comfort but it in no way changes my beliefs. I believe that heterosexuals have no illusions about the gay community & feel no guilt about their moral stance no matter how much pressure is applied by the radical faction of the gay movement. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 20, 2009 8:05 AM:

" anti. I am painfully aware many will never change their beliefs, no matter how much scientific evidence is presented. Many however believe it is immoral to inflict needless suffering on others, and once they understand how their beliefs harm others, they begin to re-examine those beliefs, and realize their punishment of gay people is not morally justified. While you may be comfortable in perpetuating the stigmatization of gay people which harms them in the many ways previously described by the APA, not every heterosexual person agrees with your stance. For those people, I offer more information from the APA:

"Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the United States encounter extensive prejudice, discrimination, and violence because of their sexual orientation. Intense prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people was widespread throughout much of the 20th century. Public opinion studies over the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s routinely showed that, among large segments of the public, lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were the target of strongly held negative attitudes. More recently, public opinion has increasingly opposed sexual orientation discrimination, but expressions of hostility toward lesbians and gay men remain common in contemporary American society. Prejudice against bisexuals appears to exist at comparable levels.

Sexual orientation discrimination takes many forms. Severe antigay prejudice is reflected in the high rate of harassment and violence directed toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals in American society. Numerous surveys indicate that verbal harassment and abuse are nearly universal experiences among lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Also, discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in employment and housing appears to remain widespread." "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 20, 2009 8:53 AM:

" newnapan. We need to oppose violence in all of its forms, including the culture of violence adopted my so many people who glamorize the prison culture and gang lifestyle, whether they belong to a gang or not.

Every major religion has a version of the golden rule. It is also a moral standard adopted by non believers. The problem is in remembering to apply it to our attitudes toward others and in our daily lives. "

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

" gay rhetoric?...who is cramming anything down your throat? All that is being asking is recognition that same sex couple have the same right to marry that heterosexual couples. Who is forcing whom? You are forcing same sex couples to abide by your rules...

Where is there a state mandate in education about same sex couples, savenapa? and who is making their sex life your business? No one.

"BDSM victims of discrimination association" What does that have to do with same sex marriage.....or are you saying only homosexuals practice BDSM? I have a hunch you know that isn't true and that it has nothing to do with same sex marriage. "

juliana wrote on Mar 20, 2009 3:11 PM:

" From Council member Juliana Inman: I announced - on several occasions - that I would be absent from the meeting on March 17. I did not add publicly that this was due to a medical condition requiring surgery. If my presence was required for action, the issue could have been scheduled for another meeting. I appreciate all the well wishes in the past week. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 20, 2009 7:49 PM:

" "New Hampshire and Vermont legislatures are both looking at bills that would legalize same sex marriage."

I hear from the global warming ecofreaks that most of New England will be underwater by the end of this century. So will low-lying parts of San Francisco. Is it divine retribution? Maybe those people should get busy building Noah arks. :-) "

Raven wrote on Mar 20, 2009 11:34 PM:

" and the vermont senate committee has approved a bill today ... the times they are a changing..

Is that the approach, JR? to dismiss them as ecofreaks? Objectification makes it easier to dismiss them since you don't have to deal with them as human beings. Easier to not think of them as human beings is it? "

sicksense wrote on Mar 20, 2009 11:57 PM:

" Raven have you ever seen the news coverage of the Gay Pride parades over the years? I would call that shoving their lifestyle down our throats. I remember several years ago trying to grab the remote control as quickly as I could to change the channel so my kids didn't see the news!

That's making their sex life my business. "

Raven wrote on Mar 21, 2009 5:17 AM:

" sicksense, has anyone ever forced you to read the coverage or go watch the parade? I know how much coverage the NVR gives the parade each year and there is only channel in the that covers it live and since it is television, nothing all that daring can be shown, certainly not anything sexual.... so is it the chance that your kids might see a warddrobe malfunction or the idea that your kids can see homosexual, bisexual, transgender men and women - and their straight parents, brothers, sisters and friends - celebrating that they no longer have to hide themselves, no longer have to live as a pariah?

What about the Columbus day parade or the St. Paddy's day parades, is that forcing the Italian or Irish life styles down people's throats? "

sicksense wrote on Mar 21, 2009 9:28 AM:

" Raven based on the rules of this blog I can't refer to you with any names that first came into my head. I really can't believe you missed my point completely. I said it was the television news that was VERY offensive. News isn't something that I can predict so the images are just displayed without warning as if it's something normal. Just the images are offensive let alone the commentary.

The whole point to the gay pride parades have nothing to do with anything BUT sex. It can't even be explained to children without stealing their innocence. THAT is shoving their lifestyle down my throat! That is displaying their abnormal sexual bent to children who shouldn't have to even know about these things.

I think I mentioned in my post that I rushed to find the remote to change the channel. I didn't turn the gay pride parade on then become surprised by what I saw.

If you have children (and will be honest) you MIGHT understand what I'm talking about.

Being Italian or Irish? Are you kidding? Completely off base there. That is a truly bizarre statement. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 21, 2009 10:42 AM:

" sicksense, you missed an opportunity for parentling in favor of censorship. You could have used the opportunity to speak to your children about your personal family values and lifestyle. Your children are being exposed to far worse as they interact with the world (school & other kids) and you're not there to protect (in your case, censor) them there. I was shocked when my daughter told me some of the things other kids were saying and doing in elementary school, senior elementary school and finally high school. I figured out quickly that I needed to arm my child with information, so that she could make good decisions when confronted with these things when I wasn't around. You have more to fear from other kids when you're not around than the TV when you are around to guide and educate your children. "

savenapa wrote on Mar 21, 2009 4:02 PM:

" winewoman-

Contrary to your ideas about parenting vs censorship, there is such a thing as age appropriate subject matter. Differentiating subject/age appropriation IS parenting. "

Raven wrote on Mar 21, 2009 4:46 PM:

" I do have children, two daughters, a stepdaughter and two stepsons..and have marched with my stepdaughter in the parade for the past three years in support of her and her friends....so I would say I have a more intimate experience with the gay pride parade than you appear to have.

Did you really think that a 30 second spot on the evening news- and i know what they will and will not show on broadcast television - would so corrupt your children? You say it was all about sex but I doubt very much you or your kids saw any sex on the news coverage of the parade, so what offended you?

Winewoman is right, you missed a chance to educate and instead helped to impart an irrational fear to them. "

Napagrrl wrote on Mar 21, 2009 7:00 PM:

" To ME, "age appropriate subject matter" refers to anything my kids ask. What parent among us hasn't had our child ask a question we weren't prepared for? In issues of sexuality and morality (as well as every other unexpected question) I have answered honestly and accurately - although in an age-appropriate way. If my five-year-old asked "why are those two men holding hands?" my answer would have been along the lines of "because they're good friends." If my 15-year-old had asked the same question (although this didn't happen - they were not shielded to this extent) I would have said something to the effect of, "everyone has a right to love whomever s/he wants as well as a right to demonstrate affection for each other without criticism or derision."


And Paddy, what did you vote on the proposition 8 issue? Did you want to deny young women their right to an abortion? Have you voted on it three times? I am guessing you have. How about you "get over it." "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 23, 2009 8:26 AM:

" sicksense.
Since you have never seen the parade, you wouldn't know that there are church groups, firemen, police officers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, parents and friends of gay people, marching bands, and many other groups representing the broad range of people who support equality in our country. Because many are very ordinary, everyday people, they don't make the news or the videos made by conservative groups intended to stigmatize gay people. Only the flamboyant groups make the news or those videos that are intended marginalize us. They only use the images of those who do flaunt their sexuality, ignoring the other aspects of the human experience that are represented in the parade.

Unless your relationship with your husband it based solely on sex, you should be able to understand that the lives and relationships of gay people are based on those other things like shared responsibility and commitment, just as I suspect your relationship is. If you understood that, it would be easy for you to explain to your children that, just like any other parade, people like to dress up in silly costumes and forget about the stress and strife often encountered in everyday life. But instead, you are setting them up for the same emotional stress you experience when confronted with the reality that gay people exist and want the same rights and opportunities you have. By passing on to them your belief that gay people are abnormal and immoral, you will cause them to suffer needless stress as they encounter coworkers, perhaps even employers, neighbors, firemen, law enforcement officers, doctors, nurses, waiters, etc, who are gay.

(I also wonder if you are teaching your children to use those hateful words that you can't use here... ) "

savenapa wrote on Mar 24, 2009 5:44 PM:

" equal not special-

homosexuality is abnormal. Last time I checked the stats homosexuals are in the minority. Hence-abnormal. the "norm" is what it always has been. sheeeesh "

Raven wrote on Mar 24, 2009 5:56 PM:

" savenapa...if you use that basis, people who are left-handed are abnormal, people who are red haired are abnormal...and Christians are abnormal..(only 33 percent of the world believers claim Christianity as their faith) "

savenapa wrote on Mar 24, 2009 9:37 PM:

" raven-
yes you are correct. Christians are abnormal, etc., bla, bla. And we do use stats as a basis for normality. "

Raven wrote on Mar 25, 2009 8:22 AM:

" and by your standards the Napans who voted for prop 8 are abnormal "

savenapa wrote on Mar 25, 2009 5:34 PM:

" How many times does somebody have to say it Raven? Actually by "my standards",(which aren't mine at all-they did not originate with me) those that voted for prop 8 are not abnormal. If they were then it wouldn't have passed. I guess you like to get all hung up on semantics. "

Raven wrote on Mar 25, 2009 6:05 PM:

" I like to understand what people have said....didn't you post this?

"Last time I checked the stats homosexuals are in the minority. Hence-abnormal. the "norm" is what it always has been. sheeeesh ""

By your own words anyone who is not in the majority is abnormal. And in Napa they are abnormal, savenapa...55 percent voted against Prop 8. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 25, 2009 8:27 PM:

" savenapa. As you are well aware: “Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.”

Your insistence on using the word "abnormal" to refer to gay people, is simply a rationalization for causing harm to gay people by denying equal rights, and a blatant form of verbal gay bashing.

As I believe you also know by now, according to the American Psychological Association:
"Ideology assailants report that their crimes stem from their negative beliefs and attitudes about homosexuality that they perceive other people in the community share. They see themselves as enforcing social morals."

A surge in anti-gay hate crimes has been linked to Proposition 8. Anti-gay incidents accounted for more than half of hate crime cases last year - 56 per cent.
Deputy district attorney for Santa Clara County, Jay Boyarsky, told the Mercury News that a jump in anti-gay hate crime is due to controversy over the marriage ban.

He said: "My belief from having done this work for many years is that surges in types of hate incidents are linked to the headlines and controversies of the day

"Marriage equality and Proposition 8 have been in the news, and we have seen an increase in gay-bashing." "

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