'One heart, one mind at a time' | Napa Valley Register

Home » News » Local

'One heart, one mind at a time'

img
Kierah Leach of Napa holds a sign at a gathering of people at Veteran’s Memorial Park in Napa on Tuesday evening. They gathered to voice their support for same-sex marriage in California. Earlier in the day, the California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. J.L. Sousa/Register photos | Buy photos
img
People gather at Veteran’s Memorial Park in Napa on Tuesday evening to demonstrate against the California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. | Buy photos
img
Kim Kocher, left, and Karin Ashford wait for the beginning of a rally at Veterans Park in Napa on Tuesday evening to demonstrate against the state Supreme Court decision to uphold a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. Kocher and Ashford were married on June, 17, 2008 in Napa. | Buy photos
img
Kate MacPherson of Napa holds a sign during a rally at Veterans Park in Napa on Tuesday evening against the California Supreme Court decision to uphold a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. | Buy photos
img
Signs are held aloft by at Veterans Park by some of the people who attended a rally in opposition of the California Supreme Court decision to uphold a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. | Buy photos

Local gay marriage supporters vow to fight on

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Comment

By DAVID RYAN
Register City Editor

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

Local videos

November 20th, 2009

Video: John's Exploding Pumpkin

November 1st, 2009

Video: .08 what does it take?

October 29th, 2009

Video: Moving a giant pumpkin

October 22nd, 2009

Raiders head coach Cable not facing criminal charges

October 20th, 2009

Video: Tea Party at the Register

David Ryan articles

November 21st, 2009

Volunteers come together under one roof to help homeless

November 5th, 2009

Napa chamber of commerce chief steps down

October 28th, 2009

Vigil for Veronica Zimmermann draws 100

September 18th, 2009

Oak Shores to reopen for swimming

August 28th, 2009

Suspected grand theft in Napa

Crowds of gay marriage supporters came together at Napa’s Veteran’s Memorial Park Tuesday to challenge each other to build a successful campaign to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage.

Tuesday morning’s news that the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage, hurt the gay community, said Deb Stallings, leader of the Napa Valley Unity League.

But Stallings and other locals who had married between the legalization of gay marriage last year and the passage of Proposition 8 were thankful the court had recognized their unions. That did not mean they were satisfied.

“If there’s anything we know from experience, it’s that you can’t be almost equal,” Stallings said. “It’s equality or nothing.”

Toward that end, Stallings urged the crowd to take the discussion of equal rights for homosexuals to friends, family and elected officials, calling on gays and their supporters to change “one heart, one mind at a time.”

In recent months, Stallings’ group had petitioned city councils up and down Napa Valley to proclaim their support for gay marriage. Yountville and St. Helena had agreed, but Napa and American Canyon City Councilmembers had refused to vote on the grounds that it wasn’t a local issue over which the cities had jurisdiction.

“People tell us, ‘Why are you doing this? It’s so divisive for the community,’” Stallings said. “We will not go to the back of the bus.”

Rev. Bonnie Dlott of the Napa congregation of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of North Bay, pledged her support for same-sex marriage as a person of faith.

“In our tradition, we believe in the inherent worth of every human being,” she said to cheers. One person in the crowd yelled, “Who would Jesus disenfranchise?”

Dlott cited the five states and the District of Columbia that allow same-sex marriage as the harbinger — with hard work from advocates.

“My 17-year-old daughter says something when somebody really ticks her off: ‘It is on!’” she said. “Well, it is on!”

Saulo Santos and his partner of 10 years were in town on vacation from Minnesota. Santos decided to come down to the Napa rally after hearing about it on Facebook and Twitter three hours before the rally started.

Santos said it was crucial for gays to win the right to marry in California.

“It’s going to be a big boost,” he said. “If it passes here, it will pass in other places.”

Representatives from State Sen. Pat Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa, and Rep. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, read statements expressing disappointment with the court ruling and hope that the fight for same-sex marriage is not over.

“But in our disappointment, we can also find comfort in the fact that the trend is moving away from discrimination and towards equal freedom and opportunity for all loving couples, regardless of gender or orientation,” a statement from Wiggins read.

As the crowd gathered to walk a loop around downtown, loudspeakers blared rocker Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down” as a member of the opposition — a bicyclist with a large sign calling on people to support Proposition 8 — rode alongside them.

78 comment(s)

proudmama2 wrote on May 27, 2009 5:44 AM:

" What was going on at the end of the video with the two men in the black shirts....making rude comments to the man on the bike??? Felt weird with their body language towards him.

Thank GOD for freedom of speech but was there a "little" harrassment going on there? "

krusty wrote on May 27, 2009 7:08 AM:

" How do you know they were making rude comments, proudmama? Any time you have people come together with such different opinions, there are going to be some heated arguments. That's all that was. The man on the bike could have chosen a place that wasn't just feet away from the other group if he wanted to get his point across and ensure things remained peaceful. "

eyeamme wrote on May 27, 2009 7:25 AM:

" oh my god, proudmama2, how is that harassment (harassment has one "r" by the way)!

The Yes-On-8-er was pushing by him. The video doesn't capture the whole encounter so you are only going by what you see. The "yes" guy may have harassed that man and that was his response. you are turning mole hills into mountains so to speak. "oh he moved his hips weird! That's Sexual Harassment!"

Uhg... "

shareathought wrote on May 27, 2009 7:44 AM:

" Proudmama2 asks:

"What was going on at the end of the video with the two men in the black shirts... (and) ...the man on the bike???"

Coincidentally, standing only feet away, across the sidewalk and on the concrete wall (like a retaining wall or bench from one side, it is visible in the video), I observed that there were four men happily talking when, the man on the bike came up and into them with the bike. Two turned away, the third spoke to the bicyclist first and the fourth refused to move. It was obvious that the man straddling the bike was making attempts to instigate a confrontation.

Earlier, after the gays, lesbians, family, friends and community supporters listened to speakers, they walked west on Third Street and had only gone a short distance when the man on the bike pulled directly in front of them (between the motorcycle officer and the walkers; we could have tripped over him).

After another few blocks, a woman ran to the front of the walkers with a "No on 8 placard" to block the view of his sign from the people. He began to shout at her not to touch him or his stuff and rode some distance away (this description of his behavior is done with the utmost politesse).

After the officers intervened with the man "riding" his bike on the sidewalk, he pulled out an oversized camera and seemed to go out of his way to place it close to peoples faces and within their personal space.

People who responded to his attempts to anger those gathered, told him that they would pray for him, pray to melt the ice from around his heart and soul. "

SuzieSwirled wrote on May 27, 2009 7:50 AM:

" I like the title of this article -

"One Heart, One Mind at a Time"

Although I am 100% behind the rights of all to marry the person of their choosing, I am rather dismayed at the some of the behavior of many of my fellow supporters of this right. "

tsgets wrote on May 27, 2009 7:59 AM:

" Proudmama2...

I agree. I saw that. I played the video back and saw that the man on the bike is a pro Prop 8 supporter and the man in the black shirt appears to be against prop 8. Again, it appears the anti folks have done more damage to themselves. Practice what you preach folks. "

Farmgirl wrote on May 27, 2009 8:22 AM:

" Yeah for the man on the bike! I support him entirely! "

reneefannin wrote on May 27, 2009 8:39 AM:

" The black shirts were worn to mourn the loss of the right to marry. They were not harrassing him, but instead asking him to please back off and stp videom taping people.
He wrote his bike, he video taped people in their face and made comments to me as I held a sign with pictures of my family about "immorality and other deragatory comments".

The rally and march were peaceful as will be all of our demonstrations or actions over the coming year(s).

As always, we mean no harm, we come in peace, but we will not stop our forward drive for equality. "

grape wrote on May 27, 2009 9:16 AM:

" The article mentions that someone in the crowd yelled “Who would Jesus disenfranchise?”

I highly doubt Jesus would advocate men sleeping with men or women sleeping with women. Doesn't mean he doesn't love them though. "

melimop wrote on May 27, 2009 10:37 AM:

" Well grape, do you think Jesus condones a women cheating on her husband either? I mean seriously - why does Jesus even play a part in this? Pretty sure there's something called the serperation between church and state right. Well that's because religion is a belief - not a proven fact.

Homophobes need to get over it already - gay people are never going away. If the law would just pass, imagine how this would "not" be such a problem anymore? "

apartmentguy wrote on May 27, 2009 10:58 AM:

" CROWDS??? My wife and I saw this demonstration and there were about 50 people? HMMM 75,000 residents of napa and 50 protestors? I think a better descriptor would be GROUP. This demonstration is typical of the small but VOCAL minority in California! The people and courts have spoken! "

bv wrote on May 27, 2009 11:44 AM:

" I saw the end of the march and would estimate there were more than 200 people peacefully marching. "

John Richards wrote on May 27, 2009 11:45 AM:

" The whole demonstration was pretty pathetic. Many held signs saying "No on Prop 8" as if they didn't know the vote took place last November. Then there were those with the "H8" t-shirts. Is that how you plan to influence and sway the majority who votes for Prop 8? I don't think your demeaning approach will work. The blaring loud music at the end, which was allowed to go on well after the marchers departed, was another downer. "

grape wrote on May 27, 2009 12:12 PM:

" melimop wrote on May 27, 2009 10:37 AM:

" Well grape, do you think Jesus condones a women cheating on her husband either? I mean seriously - why does Jesus even play a part in this? "

No melimop, I don't think Jesus condones people cheating on their spouses. Why does Jesus play a part in this? Ask the person that shouted the remark I commented about...they are the ones bringing religion into it not I. "

reneefannin wrote on May 27, 2009 12:12 PM:

" ohn Richards wrote on May 27, 2009 11:45 AM:
" The whole demonstration was pretty pathetic. Many held signs saying "No on Prop 8" as if they didn't know the vote took place last November. Then there were those with the "H8" t-shirts. Is that how you plan to influence and sway the majority who votes for Prop 8? I don't think your demeaning approach will work. The blaring loud music at the end, which was allowed to go on well after the marchers departed, was another downer.

Actually, we plan to influence that 4% margin by individual conversations and being a part of our communities, showing people who are still struggling with our equal rights that we are just families and that giving us marriage rights in no way whatsoever impacts heterosexual marriage. "

Raven wrote on May 27, 2009 12:13 PM:

" methinks thou doth protest too much, JR "

lmiller wrote on May 27, 2009 1:10 PM:

" Wow, Raven, good one. "

proudmama2 wrote on May 27, 2009 1:36 PM:

" Shareathought and others-- Thank you for your kind explanation of what happened. I was going from what I saw on the video. "

reneefannin wrote on May 27, 2009 1:37 PM:

" apartmentguy wrote on May 27, 2009 10:58 AM:
" CROWDS??? My wife and I saw this demonstration and there were about 50 people? HMMM 75,000 residents of napa and 50 protestors? I think a better descriptor would be GROUP. This demonstration is typical of the small but VOCAL minority in California! The people and courts have spoken! "

ummm....a very slight margin of a majority of the people have spoken....the courts said 18,000 same sex couples are still married. They also said that they recognize that Prop 8 takes away rights but that California lacks protections of civil rights from the initiative process.
So, I'm sure you would love it if we sat down in the face of this attempt to marginalize and suppress gay Californians, but we say :

"No Thank You and we will see you in Federal court and at the ballot in 2010"

To quote Councilman Krider:
"When you discriminate against one, you discriminate against all" "

debstallings wrote on May 27, 2009 2:44 PM:

" They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but none describe the feeling from last night. It was a loving and affirming event that made me so happy to be part of this community. Thanks to the HUNDREDS who came to laugh, cry, hug, dance and march! Last night highlighted the beautiful resilience of this community. While the Supreme Court’s ruling felt like a violent kick in the gut, a few hours later we had picked ourselves up, dusted ourselves off and vowed to keep fighting the good fight.

Though you might not know it if you only read these anonymous blogs, Napa Valley is a loving and tolerant community that embraces diversity and equality. The majority of voters said NO to the discrimination of Proposition 8 and those gathered last night recommitted to defeating this hateful initiative with yet another trip to the ballot box.

It's sad that our community continues to be divided on this issue. 85 MILLION DOLLARS was spent on Proposition 8 and look where we are now - back at square one. If we could somehow agree that civil marriage is a right to which we are all entitled and that churches can confer whatever religious designations they want on the relationships they endorse, we could move past this and work together to address other pressing issues. I'd rather spend $85 million on education, roads or anything that improves life for all of us.

That said, we will continue the journey. We will work with our friends and allies, we will reach out to our elected officials, we will have open and honest dialogue with communities of faith and communities of color, we will educate, engage and encourage at every opportunity. We will win – love will prevail. "

get a life wrote on May 27, 2009 3:08 PM:

" What is sad is that you continue to force this issue when its been clear not just once but twice now, the majority of us do not want this!!! Why can't you people get it!!! Be done with this already, we are tired of it!!!! You have your "marriage" rights too, its called civil unions and domestic partnerships... Please, just be done with this already!!! "

Hear Ye wrote on May 27, 2009 3:47 PM:

Whodini wrote on May 27, 2009 3:51 PM:

" Can we hold more marches,protests, demonstrations. My brother loves the overtime, and I like the attention that Napa gets from the media. "

crusherfan wrote on May 27, 2009 3:53 PM:

" whether you like it or not...its biggest supporter is backing off.so should everyone else.the people of califonia have spoken.get over it.you can still change your last name to reflect your partners "

007WYNWM wrote on May 27, 2009 4:03 PM:

" Iowa and 4 other states tell us they have gay marriage through the News Media not through the population of those states. Iowa and the other states are still undecided on this issue and the courts battels ballots votes are still to come.This issue is not as clear cut as some would have us believe. It is not an inherent right for two men or two women to marry. This is a very recent social invention.With homosexuality in a permanent minority, marriage rights are not a foregone conclusion.

That being said,I am not in favor (if) I am forced into granting general rights to homosexuals including anti-discrimination laws and civil unions. A permanent minority (1%) of the population.It seems to me the news should be reporting not a clear cut victory for gay marriage but the facts of what the next steps are in the state courts. However, to assume that the majority population agrees with this view is absurd. Remember that most of California blacks voted for a gay marriage ban. Here is an oppressed population that could not bring themselves to vote for gay unions. Well, I guess there are "wrong wayne" blacks out there. "

shareathought wrote on May 27, 2009 4:59 PM:

" proudmama2, you are welcome.

It is often difficult to tell the truth from pictures, words and even videos. There have been studies that show several people can be watching the same incident and yet all have a different opinion on what happened.

That is in part what has made the marriage issue difficult for many_ what is the truth as their country, their religion, their friends, neighbors or media has told them vs what do they feel in their heart?

Thank you for your courtesy. "

debstallings wrote on May 27, 2009 5:04 PM:

" This is so not about sharing your partner's last name. This is about having the right to visit your partner in ICU or to transport her body across state lines if the unthinkable happens on a birthday trip to Las Vegas. This is about protecting the children we are raising together, and sharing in retirement benefits after supporting each other during a 45 year career. Those are things you don't "get over." So we will continue to fight. It's true this issue has been voted on twice, and the results were dramatically different. We've made so much progress. We've changed hearts. we've changed minds. 40 years ago, things that were absolutely commonplace are unimaginable today. One day we will look back on this time in our lives with the same head-shaking disbelief we feel when we see pictures of water fountains labeled "whites" and "coloreds". Change does come. Justice does prevail. Love conquers all...whether you like it or not. "

boles707 wrote on May 27, 2009 6:30 PM:

" i am happy they up held it so now everyone one needs to get over it it passed and thats the way thing should be any ways man and woman NOT man and man "

krusty wrote on May 27, 2009 7:22 PM:

" grape, please give us quotes from Jesus denouncing homosexuals. Homosexuality has been around since before Jesus' time yet there's nothing noting that Jesus opposed homosexuality. "

servant wrote on May 27, 2009 8:01 PM:

" Consider what the Bible has to say:

'Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor theives, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.'
-1st Corinthians 9-11

There's quite a list there besides homosexuality. There's nothing special about homosexuality, to God its as bad as adultery etc. This list applies to those who practice these things and refuse to turn away and to Jesus for forgiveness and a new life. God wants us to be free! "

shareathought wrote on May 27, 2009 8:30 PM:

" 007, please complete this thought: "A permanent minority (1%) of the population."

If you intended to say that only 1% of couple's households or 10% of our country's population or perhaps 5% of our women and 5% of our men are homosexual, many of us have already heard these numbers. The numbers don't matter, as Rev. Bonnie Dlott stated "we believe in the inherent worth of every human being". "

John Richards wrote on May 27, 2009 10:23 PM:

" Hear Ye wrote: "I counted 107 people at 5:45pm but thanks for playing."

Yeah, but how many of those were just curious onlookers like myself? "

John Richards wrote on May 27, 2009 10:37 PM:

" krusty wrote: "there's nothing noting that Jesus opposed homosexuality. "

If you seek, you shall find the truth:

First, Jesus only endorsed heterosexual marriage:
"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." (Matthew 19:4-5)
Secondly, he commissioned his 12 disciples to publish the details of Christianity, which included a strong condemnation of homosexual acts: Romans 1:26-27 "

Hear Ye wrote on May 27, 2009 11:39 PM:

" John Richards wrote on May 27, 2009 10:23 PM:
" Yeah, but how many of those were just curious onlookers like myself? "

I have no idea. I simply counted the mass of people that were obviously huddled around listening to the speakers at the park. The exact number of supporters there is of little significance for a rally planned only hours in advance. The point is that there were clearly more than 50 people there as someone suggested. "

equalnotspecial wrote on May 28, 2009 6:38 AM:

" The bible is not and should not be used to write our laws. That being said, it seems important at this point to point out that there was no ancient word for "homosexual" and that many scholars believe Paul was talking about Pagan rituals or prostitution. He was clearly not talking about committed relationships.

It is also important to note that out of all the things labeled as "sin" none are used to deny marriage rights except the "sin" of homosexuality. Not even murder. So gay law enforcement people are denied marriage equality while criminals are not. How is that protecting marriage? Clearly, this is about protecting a long standing prejudice against gay people, not protecting marriage. "

cubs1969 wrote on May 28, 2009 7:46 AM:

" Hear Ye,

If there are 75,000 people in Napa, 50 people at your event represents 0.07% of the population. If we use your number of 107, that goes up to a whopping 0.14%. Cue the crickets, please. "

cubs1969 wrote on May 28, 2009 10:19 AM:

" Hear Ye,

If there are 75,000 people in Napa, 50 people at your event represents 0.07% of the population. If we use your number of 107, that goes up to a whopping 0.14%. Cue the crickets, please. "

Hear Ye wrote on May 28, 2009 1:09 PM:

" Cubs1969-

The point is that you are being disingenuous in your attempt to be dismissive about a rally for a cause you don't support. They wanted to have their voices be heard and obviously they did as you and many others are in here talking about it. Mission accomplished. "

John Richards wrote on May 28, 2009 8:46 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: 'there was no ancient word for "homosexual" and that many scholars believe Paul was talking about Pagan rituals or prostitution."

This is nonsense. Paul in Rom. 1:26-27 does not use a word for homosexual, so there is no chance for mistranslation. He clearly describes certain acts as being wrong, with no qualification as to whether the perpetrators were in a one night stand or a committed relationship. The proscribed acts are the same either way. And nothing in the context of those verses suggests prostitution or pagan rituals. "

Raven wrote on May 28, 2009 10:21 PM:

" uhhh...JR...a lot of the acts were and are done by heterosexuals.... "

Alter ego wrote on May 29, 2009 10:48 AM:

" Everyone keeps throwing around the number of homosexual unions performed between May and Nov of 2008 as being 18,000.

Anyone know where this number came from?

What was the number of normal marriages performed? "

equalnotspecial wrote on May 29, 2009 12:27 PM:

" following quote from "What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality" by Rev. Dr. Mel White:
"Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female) -- all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.

You'll also note that Romans 2 begins with "Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." Even after he describes the disturbing practices he has seen, Paul warns us that judging others is God's business, not ours." "

Raven wrote on May 29, 2009 5:56 PM:

" an estimate from the state, alter ... "

John Richards wrote on May 30, 2009 11:00 PM:

" Raven wrote: "...a lot of the acts were and are done by heterosexuals."

And your point is?
Romans 1:26-27 does not forbid any specific type of sexual contact except between same sex participants. "

John Richards wrote on May 30, 2009 11:27 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote "Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean..."

I have just reread the first chapter of Romans, and there is not the slightest hint that Paul is rehashing some debauchery he saw on an earlier missionary trip. Verse 19, for example, starts out, "For the truth about God is known to them [sinful men] instinctively; God has put this knowledge in their hearts. Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse."

Paul is talking about the sinfulness of men, who should know better.

Anyone reading Romans 1 with an open mind will not come to the twisted interpretation of Mel White.

There are quite a few commentaries on Mel White's odd interpretation. A short one here:
http://lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com/2008/11/rev-dr-mel-white-on-christian_13.html

There is a rather lengthy rebuttal of Mel White's interpretation here:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4494 "

Raven wrote on May 31, 2009 7:29 AM:

" "The proscribed acts..."

The the acts are not proscribed then? "

equalnotspecial wrote on May 31, 2009 8:59 AM:

" The goal of religious conservatives is to demonize gay people and to use the bible to justify denying any legal equality. They must therefore refute any interpretation of the bible that challenges their condemnation, even though there are numerous verses that instruct them to leave the judgement to God, and treat others they way they want to be treated.

While the bible does not clearly prohibit committed same sex relationships, yet clearly prohibits scores of other things, why is homosexuality the only thing used to prohibit marriage? "

aknra wrote on May 31, 2009 12:00 PM:

" Yes, one heart, one mind at a time will be twisted into believing a deviancy equal to "i.n.c.e.s.t" is a normal occurrence that should be tolerated, nay, even celebrated. "

Saulo wrote on May 31, 2009 6:12 PM:

" After traveling to Napa and thinking that due to it's distance from San Francisco the city would be rather un-welcoming (due to its size) to me and my partner. I found this march and I was happy to be interviewed for this report and voice my opinion. I am glad that my perception of Napa was wrong and I was throughly pleased with the outcome of people from a smaller town. "

John Richards wrote on May 31, 2009 6:27 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: 'The goal of religious conservatives is to demonize gay people..."

No, that's not our goal at all. I prefer a laissez faire attitude most of the time, live and let live, but if I see my viewpoint attacked in print, I feel obliged to defend it. I'm sorry that gives you a warped impression of what I'm about.

"There are numerous verses that instruct them to leave the judgement to God."
Let's examine one such verse, the one you quoted most recently, Romans 2:1-3: "Therefore you are without excuse, O man, everyone who judges; for in that in which you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge do the same things. But know that the judgment of God is according to truth on those who practice such things. And, O man, the one judging those who do such things, and practice them, do you think this, that you shall escape the judgment of God?"
Clearly, the text is not a condemnation of any and all judgment but a warning to those who pass judgment against that which they themselves are doing.
Elsewhere, Jesus actually commanded appropriate judgment, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

"While the bible does not clearly prohibit committed same sex relationships..."
Sorry, Romans 1:26-27 does exactly that. It forbids all same-sex intimacy, regardless of the motive. "

John Richards wrote on May 31, 2009 6:31 PM:

" Raven wrote "The the acts are not proscribed then?"

Any intimate sex acts between same-sex participants are proscribed according to Romans 1:26-27. "

Raven wrote on May 31, 2009 10:42 PM:

" So the same acts are okay between heterosexuals and proscribed if they take place between homosexuals.......and the crux of the matter is JR, despite being proscribed by the Bible, all are legal between consenting adults in this country, saying the government has no business in the bedroom. (Lawrence vb Texas.) so what the bible says about it is ..well..irrelevant.

Aknra, I want to thank you, the more you post, the more your help the cause. Keep it up the good work. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jun 1, 2009 7:03 AM:

" Voting to take away the rights of others that you grant to yourself hardly qualifies as "live and let live".

All one has to do to see that the goal of some conservatives is to demonize gay people is to read the 12:00 PM post by aknra, or some of the many others that have compared gay people to criminals and abusers of children and animals. Or visit some of the anti-gay web sites hosted by religious conservatives.

Your interpretation of what the bible says is one you are free to have, but others interpret it differently. And while the bible shouldn't be used to make laws, as long as we continue to allow civil rights to be subjected to the popular vote (which the founding fathers tried to prevent) some will vote their own interpretation of it.

But you still haven't answered why, out of the many things the bible prohibits, that is the only one used to prohibit marriage? "

John Richards wrote on Jun 1, 2009 11:23 AM:

" Raven wrote: 'so what the bible says about it [gay sex] is ..well..irrelevant."

It may seem irrelevant to you, but it is definitely not irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. And it's not just in the Bible, but in sacred texts and traditions from other religions as well. Those moral/religious values strongly affect what happens at the ballot box. Since when is the outcome of what happens at the ballot box irrelevant to you? "

John Richards wrote on Jun 1, 2009 11:42 AM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "... hardly qualifies as "live and let live".

'Live and let live' also implies the concept of "Don't bother me and I won't bother you." But once you have invaded my turf, you have broken that equilibrium. If I see my turf (traditional marriage) invaded, I feel compelled to fight back and drive away the intruder.

As for aknra, it isn't intellectually honest to ascribe the motives of the most strident anti-gay poster to religious conservatives in general, as you did in your 8:59AM post of yesterday. ("The goal of religious conservatives is to demonize gay people.") "

John Richards wrote on Jun 1, 2009 12:06 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "you still haven't answered why, out of the many things the bible prohibits, that is the only one used to prohibit marriage."

The traditional point of marriage (at least for conservative religious people) is to sanctify sexual relations between a man and a woman. See 1 Corinthians 7:9. It seems sacrilegious, therefore, to misuse marriage as a means to sanctify sexual acts between same-sex couples, when those acts are prohibited. "

alucawanza wrote on Jun 1, 2009 4:02 PM:

" JR
Get over it. This is not a religious issue. It is a civil issue. This is a Representative Republic, not a Theocracy. There is no place for your God in the government. There is no place for the Bible in lawmaking. This is a question of civil rights. Our senators, congressmen, and Supreme Court judges do not consult the Bible before making decisions. They may pray privately, may attend church, but they do not bring God into the houses of government.
If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry a gay person...I thought you had put this to rest. You're still prostelyzing. It's not working.

BTW: When I took my wedding vows (in church) there was no mention of santification of sexual relations. I can imagine the reactions of our friends....
What a hoot! "

John Richards wrote on Jun 1, 2009 9:24 PM:

" alu wrote: 'Get over it. This is not a religious issue."

You're arguing in circles. First you come up with some half-baked justification for your position from the Bible. Then when I shoot that down, you retreat to "It's not a religious issue." We've been over this same ground dozens of times.

"When I took my wedding vows (in church) there was no mention of santification of sexual relations. I can imagine the reactions of our friends....
What a hoot! "

I'm not surprised. Those who think the Biblical concept of chastity before marriage is a "hoot" probably think the rest of the Bible is a 'hoot' also. Why even bother calling it a "church"? It sounds more like a social club where everyone does what they want. "

Raven wrote on Jun 2, 2009 12:18 AM:

" again JR, from a legal standpoint, what the Bible says about homosexuality is irrelevant. We do not and have not lived in a theocracy.

"Why even bother calling it a "church"? It sounds more like a social club where everyone does what they want."

Now you have made yourself the judge of what a church is? "

John Richards wrote on Jun 2, 2009 11:15 AM:

" Raven wrote: "from a legal standpoint, what the Bible says about homosexuality is irrelevant. We do not and have not lived in a theocracy."

Which has very little relevancy to what we were discussing. I only bring up the Bible defenses when someone tries to use the Bible to justify gay marriage.
In the final analysis, the rationale behind what drives my decision making at the voting booth is nobody's concern, which is why we call it a secret ballot. "

daveposner wrote on Jun 2, 2009 4:36 PM:

" One thing that disturbs me about the discussion above is that it seems to reduce the function of marriage to sex. As is well known, marriage is not a requirement for sex and I don't think it's any secret that the proportion of time and energy devoted to sex in the vast majority of marriages of whatever orientation is negligible compared to the overriding concern for any family of making a decent life within our homes and our communities. "

Raven wrote on Jun 2, 2009 11:11 PM:

" JR, a quick look at the posts shows more people trying to use it to justify banning than the opposite. No matter how many times you bring it up, it is still irrelevant from a legal standpoint...btw...have you figured out the actual harm that would be caused by same sex marriage? "

John Richards wrote on Jun 3, 2009 2:55 PM:

" Raven wrote: " No matter how many times you bring it up, it is still irrelevant from a legal standpoint."

Which is still irrelevant at the voting booth. People vote based on feelings and moral bearings, not because of some esoteric legal principle. "

alucawanza wrote on Jun 3, 2009 5:41 PM:

" JR said:
Which is still irrelevant at the voting booth. People vote based on feelings and moral bearings, not because of some esoteric legal principle. "

First, there is nothing esoteric about legal principles.
Second, unless you are a mind reader you can't possibly know how or why people make their voting decisions. You may only speak for your own motivation.

BTW: I have never quoted the Bible in any of my posts. You can't "shoot down" that which does not exist. It is about civil rights. It is a legal matter. It is a Constitutional matter. The Bible has no place in legal matters. We are a representative republic, not a theocracy. That has been repeated over and over again by many in these posts.

BTW: You have not answered Raven's question: have you figured out the actual harm that would be caused by same sex marriage? " "

John Richards wrote on Jun 4, 2009 11:55 AM:

" alu wrote: "I have never quoted the Bible in any of my posts."

Looks like I had you mixed up with equalnotspecial. My apologies if that offended you...

"... actual harm that would be caused by same sex marriage?"

Harm is in the eye of the beholder. My concept of what marriage is all about would be harmed psychologically. To me, marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, instituted for the primary purpose of conceiving and raising a child. Psychological and spiritual harm may be difficult to define and even harder to see, but it is real nevertheless. "

Raven wrote on Jun 4, 2009 8:53 PM:

" no, JR...what is the actual harm .....not moral or spiritual disapproval...what is the legally actionable harm caused? "

John Richards wrote on Jun 5, 2009 9:19 PM:

" So you're saying that psychological harm is not actual harm? "

Raven wrote on Jun 6, 2009 9:16 AM:

" I said actionable harm JR.....and you have yet to even show any psychological harm caused by same sex marriages....all you have now is disapproval..... "

John Richards wrote on Jun 7, 2009 5:07 PM:

" I frankly don't give a hoot, my dear Raven, as to whether the harm is 'actionable' or not. It's still harm. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 7, 2009 5:10 PM:

" Raven wrote: "you have yet to even show any psychological harm."

Well, I feel the psychological harm, so it exists, and millions of others would agree with me. "

Raven wrote on Jun 8, 2009 12:30 AM:

" and tell us JR..what is this psychological harm? What about same sex couples being in a loving, committed relationship harms you? You talk about the harm but have yet to say what the harm is? "

John Richards wrote on Jun 8, 2009 10:33 AM:

" You ask, what is the psychological harm? I've explained it before. To conservatives marriage is a sacred institution that we hold in high esteem. Furthermore we believe that the institution of marriage exists for the primary purpose of conceiving and nurturing children, our next generation. To have that sacred and age-old institution changed and sullied by outside forces is hurtful and demoralizing, especially so when that change is unnecessary. Gay partners have alternative forms of commitment. "

Raven wrote on Jun 8, 2009 6:21 PM:

" Outside forces, Jr? These are your friends, your neighbors and possibloy even family members.

At what point did marriage belong to just one group; a special club, where only a select few were allowed to join.

Your 'harm' sounds a lot like you don't like the fact that other people may be allowed to join your club. So, it is okay for you support the continued infliction of harm to others for no other reason than you may feel demoralized? And how do any two people who love each other and commit themselves to each sully marriage?

I won't even go into the procreation argument because if you truly believed that, you have just told all heterosexual couples who cannot or choose to not have children that they cannot join the club.

Your comments sound a lot like the comments that were flying when interracial marriage was outlawed. Change is coming JR, it is just a matter of time. You can spend your time like King Canute, trying to hold back the sea, or learn how to love those who are new members of the club. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 10, 2009 7:39 PM:

" "Outside forces" is simply a colorful way of describing those seeking to alter the meaning of marriage. They may be my friends and neighbors, but there is nothing to prevent me from having a different political outlook than my friends and neighbors.

Anyone can join the Marriage Club as long as they meet its traditional membership criteria.

Heterosexuals as a class can procreate naturally, therefore they meet the basic criteria, whether in fact a specific couple decides to remain childless or not. "

Raven wrote on Jun 10, 2009 10:39 PM:

" again, JR, you have just eliminated those heterosexuals who cannot or will not procreate (can you show any marriage law anywhere where the ability to procreate is even discussed as a requirement?)

And which traditional membership criteria are you going to use? The one the Mormons used? The one where blacks and white couldn't marry? The one where a child of 12 was married to a older man to secure the property? Which traditional criteria?

JR why not be honest....is there any circumstances you can imagine where you would support same sex marriage and full equal rights for homosexuals? "

aknra wrote on Jun 13, 2009 5:38 PM:

" AKNRA (June 12, 2009) PM
Oooo, OOOOH! Can I answer that question Raven asked of JR; “...is there any circumstances you can imagine where you would support same sex marriage and full equal rights for homosexuals?..."

A resounding NO; there is not one circumstance in my world where I would support same sex marriage, nor SPECIAL rights for homosexuals. Nope, not a one; Zip, Nada, Zilch. "

Raven wrote on Jun 14, 2009 5:05 PM:

" thank you aknra, for at least being honest about it. And what special rights are you talking about, no one I know is asking for any special rights. "

aknra wrote on Jun 22, 2009 5:12 PM:

" You are welcome Raven, but I think you know very well of what special rights I was bloging about; NEITHER of us have the right to marry another of the same sex. What your side desires is to stretch that into a NEW “right” in order to assuage your immoral and non-traditional marriage beliefs. "

Join the conversation

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

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: