NVR Logo
Home » News » Local
Rally against Prop. 8
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
By KERANA TODOROV
Register Staff Writer
Kerana Todorov articles
November 24th, 2009
Elementary school kids learn to pedal with safety on their minds
Pitching in to lend a hand in American Canyon
November 19th, 2009
Human signs banned in American Canyon
November 13th, 2009
Napa pilot supplies ocean trek
November 12th, 2009
American Canyon officials balk at budget questionnaire, want more data
more
Hundreds of Napans rallied Saturday to protest the passage of Prop. 8 — the measure that bans same-sex marriage in California.

The morning rally, which drew an estimated 400 people in front of Napa City Hall, was part of a nationwide campaign to overturn Prop. 8 which passed Nov. 4 with strong backing from the Church of Latter-day Saints and the Catholic Church. The measure restricts marriage between a man and a woman.
People carried signs — with wording that included “Let this Winemaker Stay married — no H8” and “Civil Rights = Equality” and “Please Don’t Take My Marriage License Away,” — and applauded as speakers, including field representatives from Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, and state Sen. Pat Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa, spoke for about an hour. The protesters then marched from School Street to Main Street and First Street, then back to City Hall.

“This isn’t a gay issue. It’s a civil rights issue,” Renée Fannin of Yountville told the crowd gathered on School Street.
Laurie Puzo, field representative for Evans, said the assemblywoman is proud of Napa for voting against Prop. 8, which she called mean spirited. Sharon Macklin, who also said that Wiggins is proud of Napa County’s vote on Prop. 8, said “there is no place in California for discrimination.”

Another speaker, Douglas Monroe, senior pastor at First United Methodist Church in Napa, said there can be no justification for discrimination solely on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. All people have the right to marry.
“Where there is love, there is God in our midst,” he said.

Good marriages, he said, increase the capacity of individuals to contribute to the community and protect children. Marriage, he noted, is always evolving as a civil and religious institution.

Monroe said the religious community — not the government — must have the right to discern who is eligible to marry.

“Marriage is about entering into (a) holy covenant and making a commitment with another person to share life’s joys and sorrows,” he said.

“Marriage is to be valued because it creates stable, committed relationships.”

Gregg DesElms, a Napa-based consultant and a volunteer deputy commissioner of civil ceremonies in San Jose, where he works, said he volunteered for the position after same-sex marriage became legal in California.

Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue, DesElms said.

On Elections Day, he officiated dozens of wedding ceremonies, including those of same-sex couples who wanted to make sure they could marry. Because time was running short, he conducted a mass wedding.

“It’s been a transformative experience, to say the least,” DesElms said after the rally.

Haley Hibbs, a senior at Vintage High School, came with her fiancée, Elizabeth Montgomery.

 They said, their parents are proud that they’re fighting for their rights.

Hibbs, the president of Vintage High’s Gay-Straight Alliance Network, said the passage of Prop. 8 hit them hard.

“We were really, really, really devastated,” Hibbs said, as she and Montgomery walked toward the rally carrying an armful of “Vote ‘No’ on Prop. 8” campaign signs.

At the rally and the following march, people said they want to do all they can to speak out against Prop. 8.

“It makes me so mad at myself I didn’t do more,” said Jim Schull, a retired public school teacher who came with his new husband, Richard Buth. They have been partners for 36 years.

Kristi Lesnewich, a lawyer, who donated money only two weeks before the elections to the “Vote ‘No’ on Prop. 8” campaign, plans to write protest letters and attend rallies to overturn Prop. 8, which is now before the California Supreme Court.

“I felt like somebody stabbed me when Prop. 8 passed,” she said during the march as people shouted “Civil rights for all!”

“I’m optimistic it will be (overturned),” she said.

Chris Edwards, president of the Napa Valley Unity League, said the campaign will include fundraisers, letter writing and potentially boycotting businesses that supported Prop. 8.

He also wants to engage people who oppose same-sex marriage to change their hearts.

“The main thing we can do as a community is to keep talking about it,” he said. “Discrimination is easy.”

Deb Stallings, one of the rally organizers with Fannin and others, said she was pleased with Saturday’s turnout.

“I was so proud of Napa Valley for turning out for this,” she said.

While 52 percent of California voters supported Prop. 8, 55 percent of Napa County voters opposed the measure, according to the preliminary results that will be certified later this month.
193 comment(s)

Napa wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:12 AM:

" There should be no overturn for Prop 8. proponents of the measure are agast of the voter's outcome. Whatever the ruling of the public voice, Prop 8 presnetly stands as is, and should by all means left as is. "

pharper wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:37 AM:

" I was there! I was so proud of Napa for the turnout, and I will be at any upcoming protests.

Repeal 8! "

amigo wrote on Nov 16, 2008 1:54 AM:

" Maybe the third time LGBT will get the hint.
Californians support marriage between 1man 1woman "

jfz wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:32 AM:

" Does this mean the 46% or so of voters who opposed Barack Obama can take to the streets in protest and get the presidential election overturned in the courts? "

old napa boy wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:30 AM:

" What does the bible say about marrriage? "

proudmama2 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:39 AM:

" Just a side note... can anyone tell me the meaning of flying the Rainbow flag above our own American flag? I understood long ago that nothing flies above the US flag. Is there a greater meaning? "

fmmt47 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:50 AM:

" Senior Pastor Douglas Monroe should revisit a real Seminary School then try reading and interpreting the Bible again-God ain't all about love. "

JErickson wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:24 AM:

" Isn't the City Hall closed on Saturday? "

kbf wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:25 AM:

" This is the second time we have voted and turned down homosexual marriage. Pharper, according to you our vote (twice) does not count. All you want is the name marriage, go for civil unions and all will be happy. It is not about civil rights at all. Once it would become law it WILL be taught in schools and parents do not have anything to say. check out what is happening in Massachuets.
Douoglas Monroe is all wrong and if he knew his Bible he would know what he is saying is wrong. "

jefferson wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:30 AM:

" Discrimination is like a cancer that eats you away until you are crippled.

Unfortunately, the Mormons and Catholics and supportors of Prop. 8 are forgetting the core concept of LOVE.

We must be like a bee, drinking the nectar of every flower; not the mosquito drinking blood and distributing disease.

Consider all as childrenof the Lord, as you own brothers and sisters.

Develop the quality of love, always seek the welfare of all of humanity and you will be loved in return.

Hate and discrimination will never be your lot, if you promote love and look upon ALL with Love. "

skippert wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:35 AM:

" 9 pictures. We don't even get that for the fair or local parades. WoW. "

Baraki wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:37 AM:

" I have a serious problem with any constitutional amendment that restricts peoples' rights. My opinion is that the constitution is there to guarantee rights and to limit the government rather than limit rights and empower the government. That's just me...

The only issue I have with that demonstration is the flagrant disrespect they showed for the American flag by flying it below their rainbow flag. I think they're going to alienate people from their cause rather than rally them... "

Vercingetorex wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:47 AM:

" All the marching in the world won't overturn the will of the people. This is the second time blue state California has had it's voice heard on this. The majority does not want marriage redefined.
Gays already have domestic partnership rights so whose "rights" are being denied?
There is no "right" for same sex marriage. Not by definition. And not in California. "

Farmgirl wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:08 AM:

" It has been voted down by the majority 2 times. I do not see the poultry and pork producers out disturbing people because their lives have been affected drastically by the passage of Prop 2. This is a democracy and majority rules. Get off the streets and live with it!!! "

glenroy wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:16 AM:

" It was more a herd than a protest…..reaffirms voting for 8 was the right way to.

YEA BABY 8 ALL THE WAY! "

SouthNapa wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:36 AM:

" The people have spoken. Continually protesting isn't going to change the minds of the Yes voters, it's just going to assure that they will vote against gay marriage again the next time it is on the ballot. At this point in time the constant protesting just makes you look like sore losers. Give it up until the next election! "

sjsongbird wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:45 AM:

" I am so tired of clueless people who believed the lies and deceptions of the "Yes On 8" campaign. Don't we live in a country where there is separation of Church and State? Since when is it legal to discriminate against a minority? Marriage is a fundamental right for all, not a heterosexual privilege! Come on homophobes, get over yourselves, mind your own business, and leave us alone! "

napanana wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:06 AM:

" And you dare to fly your Gay Rights flag ABOVE the AMERICAN FLAG? Yeah sure....that swayed MY vote in the next election.......... "

edwest wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:51 AM:

" Do what you want, I don't care. I understand your point. However, NEVER fly any flag high than the American Flag- that is improper, disrespectful and you lose my support when you disrespect the flag that so many have died for. A Rainbow flag over teh US flag was a mistake. "

bimgroup wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:57 AM:

" Is this the tolerant left!! Tolerent only if you believe and feel the way that they do.

Edwards seems to confuse discrimination with moral values. Moral values that have been in place for over 5000 years. The voters haved voted twice, and the outcome in the same. Time to move on folks..... "

savenapa wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:00 AM:

" Prop 8 rules! Thank you California for slowing societal decay. "

smartypants wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:20 AM:

" Phoebe, glad you could make it! There were a lot of people showing their support! I was there with my husband and 8 year old daughter (who was compelled to make her own sign!). It was a joyous rally.

Napa..FYI. In the State of California we have had some horrible laws voted on by the people (this is why we have Supreme Courts..to uphold the ideas of the Constitution when the majority is often wrong!)

Jim Crow laws from 1866-1947 segregated voting, education, employment and residential ordinances passed in various cities that required all SF Chinese to live in one area of the city.

1879-1926- no native of China shall ever exercise the privileges of an elector in the state (not able to vote)

1870- African and Indian children must attend seperate schools.

1880- It was Illegal for whites to marry a "Negro or mulatto " adding "Mongolian" in 1901, Japanese in 1909 , all Asian races in 1931, and Malays in 1933.

1894- Any person who could not read the Constitution in English or write his name (Many Americans were illiterate) could not vote.

1913-1952 Alien Land Laws prohibited Asian immigrants from owning or leasing property

Not to mention harsh Indian laws and the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.

These are just a few of the laws that your beloved California voters thought were right... I can't even begin to detail what the rest of the US voted on.

Prop 8=Hate "

db76 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:28 AM:

" Does this mean that a minority of voters can get together and potentially repeal the presidential election because they didn't like the way it turned out? "

mad4life wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:49 AM:

" 52 percent of California voters supported Prop. 8 and should stay that way no on overturing prp 8 "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:07 AM:

" Actually, I see the "H8" coming from the No on 8 crowd. The entire elctorate had the opportunity to vote, and did not support the measure. That should say something.

Those saying the measure is against love are wrong. It is about re-defing the term marriage to fit their agenda.

The majority of californians believe it should be between 1man 1 woman. "

coigue wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:12 AM:

" Marriage is a civil rights issue. Period. Those that voted yes are on the wrong side of history and will be a shame to their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. "

Dwayne wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:39 AM:

" Just shows that the left wing whackos have no respect for our democracy...

Throwing a tantrum because they lost is infantile... They're probably intellectually stuck in kindergarten recess, from when some kid takes their ball away...

Pathetic.... "

4466 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:15 PM:

" This is a Civic Rights issue! Demand a separation of church and goverment! If you do not like same sex marriage then just pray....pray because you believe that IF there is a God he/she will make things right otherwise butt out of the private business of other people. "

tris8 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:16 PM:

" I don't understand why some people are making a big deal about the flag situation, do you realize that even the act of flag burning is protected under the law as an act of free speech? It is merely another way to protest the actions of the government.
And I was so proud of Napa for coming out against Prop 8. I simply don't understand why anyone would want to limit marriage between a man and a woman. A civil union is not the same thing as a marriage. Just as segregated institutions were not equal between blacks and whites. "

napafamily wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:16 PM:

" I don't even now where to begin... I am so fed up with Prop 8 opponents and their utter disregard for democracy! A vote is a vote, majority wins. It's simple. For the SECOND time our voices were heard and Prop 8 passed. I'm sorry if it didn't go your way, but grow up and deal with it! I am very disappointed in the outcome of Prop. 4 and our Presidential election. Should I protest, riot, scream & yell until things are changed to fit my wants and desires? NO! I'm a big girl and can accept the fact that MORE people wanted Prop. 4 to fail and MORE people wanted Obama for president. Why can't Prop. 8 opponents realize the same thing?? MORE people were in favor of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Second, I am disgusted by the people who flew the gay pride flag above our American flag. Once again it just proves that people have no respect for our country and the way in which it is run. The American flag ALWAYS flies above any other flag in this country! Our country runs on a democratic vote ~ majority wins. Prop. 8 passed ~ majority spoke ~ case closed. Stop trying to take away OUR rights. We want traditional marriage, we voted, we prevailed. If you don't like it France would love to have you! "

friend#1 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:23 PM:

" What happen with this persons. they are rebellious. we have a new rule chosen for majority. the have respect our "DEMOCRACY".
And don't invade normal man or woman traditions.
Invent same differents than you are (or you feel to be).
"matrimony", "family" Please don't use this words.
Be good boys. "

savenapa wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:27 PM:

" What cracks me up are the ones that quote laws frome the 1800's to somehow try to draw a paralell. Makes me think I am talking to my wife when she cant quite keep on topic. Pass the Ritalin please? "

naparedhead wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:30 PM:

" Once again I am struck by how out of touch NV Register readers are from the sentiments of real Napans, who voted 55% against 8 and turned out by the hundreds for this peaceful and uplifting march in support of civil rights. How irrelevant. "

funnyme wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:40 PM:

" I hope the two little girls holding hands are expressing their friendship and not that they are being told that they could be lesbians even if they don't know it...

Your "diversity" flag above the US flag?

Go fight your "war on 8" somewhere else.
Go get your own country traitors!

Prop 8 passed, get over it! "

hawkins707 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:49 PM:

" all right, everyone! Those of you who voted for McCain, get your marching caps on and let's go tell the world just how mad we are! I know we lost the election, but we can still make a fuss and look like fools! Let's go! "

winghunter wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:51 PM:

" Best thing that happened yesterday was me not showing up to see you fly your flag over the flag of this great Country that i love and my family members have died for!!! I could care less if the gay's live together, marry or what ever they want to do, just quit shoving it in my face. The argument that Prop 8 promotes a "separate but equal" situation is a mockery of the plight endured by blacks who, prior to the Civil Rights Act, actually experienced physical segregation and separation. Name a place in CA or the nation for that matter that has separate drinking fountains, restrooms, schools, or bus seating reserved for gays and lesbians. To say that gays/lesbians are experiencing what blacks experienced in the past is a patent lie and an insult to the civil rights movement of the 1960's.
I did not care until i seen that multi-colored crap flag flew over MINE!!! "

c1067 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:59 PM:

" What is wrong with civil unions? Why do the gays have to make a mockery of marriage? The ammendment passed as well did the proposition 2 plus years ago before the courts overturned the peoples voice. I'm sorry you guys didn't get your way but that is life, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, didn't your mommy and daddy teach you that? Now go protest something else. "

Joe B wrote on Nov 16, 2008 1:09 PM:

" We already VOTED. Move on! "

krusty wrote on Nov 16, 2008 1:21 PM:

" God ain't all about love, fmmt47? Then what is God all about. I know God's not all about hating someone who's different then you.

Maybe someone can give us an answer to the most important question. How does gay marriage hurt you? "

Hear Ye wrote on Nov 16, 2008 1:29 PM:

" I always thought that the First Amendment was one of the things that made America so great. Apparently some people on here think that a protest makes one a traitor and/or should move to a different country if they don't agree with something. It seems to me that this logic does indeed show who is more out of touch with what it means to be a true American. "

ERIN wrote on Nov 16, 2008 1:33 PM:

" Howard Zinn: "Significant changes occur when social movements reach a critical point of power capable of moving cautious politicians beyond their tendency to keep things as they are — or when these movements, by direct action, bypass the political system and bring about change by acting directly on the obstacles to change...When black people protested and demonstrated all over the South, bringing about scenes that shocked the nation, then we got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But before that legislation, militant black protesters desegregated lunch counters and began to change the South by direct action. The movement against the war in Vietnam reached the point where it could not be ignored, where the direct action of deserting GIs, angry veterans and draft resisters created an atmosphere in which the government could no longer count on the support of the American people — and then the government began to move gradually toward ending the war." "

common sense wrote on Nov 16, 2008 1:33 PM:

" Just because you have the individual liberty doesn't mean that society has to endorse it as a best practice.

Similarly, I don't care if people do drugs in the privacy of their own home (as long as they are not hurting anyone else), but I don't think we should grant these people any special legal privileges because they choose to do so.

Besides, where does it end? Polygamy? Bestiality? Pedophilia? I'll bet they all feel like disenfranchised minority groups as well... "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 16, 2008 1:34 PM:

" I don't even know where to begin. I do agree with the flag flying issue here. It is a disrespect to our country. However, let me say something about "tradition". In the 50's it was "tradition" that blacks had no rights in this country. Discrimination was "tradition". Obviously, prop. 8 shows it still is. How sad. Our country has come a long way though. Blacks now have rights, women have rights and we finally have a black president. Now that's progress! But we still have a ways to go. What about other people's civil liberties? If the bible is the cause of prop.8 being voted for, whatever happened to separation of church and state? If the bible had all the answers, then our lives would be perfect. It clearly doesn't. Just because the bible says so, doesn't make it right. I'm a little surprised "liberal" Napa County voted for this. I would expect it in the "bible belt" of the deep south, but here?! What is wrong with you people?! So what if we redefine marriage? What is the big deal? How does a gay's marriage hurt you? So what if the schools teach it to our kids? They'll learn that love prevails. That it's okay to be gay and have the same rights to marry as a hetero. Wow, that wasn't so bad was it? Are you afraid? That's got to be it! You're afraid. You're afraid of change. Well, times change. And we must change with the times. Our society evolves. I don't think any amount of protesting or reasoning is going to change a thing. Those against prop 8, including me: You'll get another fair shot in the future. Those for 8 cannot be reasoned with. We must deal with the loss for now. "

str8fornoh8 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 1:47 PM:

" “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.”

~ Justification of the trial court when Virginia’s law criminalizing interracial marriage was challenged in the 1960s.

In response, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law, holding that “Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival…”

To preempt those who would argue that survival means “procreation” any rational person will appreciate that marriage is fundamental to survival because it legally and emotionally binds families. Married couples, straight or gay, young or old, with or without producing children, married in a church or by a civil authority, provide economic and emotional support to those connected to them as families based on a pledge of love and commitment. In order to have that pledge legally recognized, any couple of consenting adults should be able to walk into a County Clerk’s office and receive a marriage license. Anything less (e.g., domestic partnership) is a denial of equal protection of the law providing for marriage, protection guaranteed by the Constitution to all.

Under Dwayne’s logic, the Lovings, arrested in Virginia, should not have thrown a tantrum because the majority, justified by religious beliefs supporting separation of the races, had spoken. And just like “amigo” surely many in the country at that time wished people like the Lovings would “get the hint” that the majority didn’t want their tradition of racial oppression disturbed.

To those of you touting “Democracy,” I’m sad your education failed you. "

napafamily wrote on Nov 16, 2008 1:48 PM:

" Maybe what you dont understand Krusty is that gay marriage may hurt by exposing my son to lifestyles I will not be supportive of. As a parent I have the right to raise my child with certain moral values, without the schools being forced to "teach" him about gay marriage. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 16, 2008 2:10 PM:

" These protests aren't about 'civil rights' at all. The real civil rights struggle was about substantive issues like jobs and education. If you ask these protesters what rights they are referring to, the only thing they can come up with is the quibble about who gets to call their spousal union 'marriage'. In other words, it's about semantics. These protesters remind me of a petulant child who throws a hissy fit because he didn't get the same color balloon as little Johnny. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 16, 2008 2:18 PM:

" It hasn't happened (yet) in Napa, but in other cities the protesters are swarming at the LDS (Mormon) churches. How pathetic can you get? The Mormons haven't done anything wrong, they've merely exercised their First Amendment right to support the causes they believe in. Leave it up to the misguided libs to attempt to intimidate those who believe differently than they do. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 16, 2008 2:26 PM:

" jefferson, this continued characterization of those who supported Prop 8 as hateful discriminators only means that you carry a lot of hate in your own heart.
Love doesn't mean letting anybody do whatever they want. Tough Love (real love) means sometimes having to say No. "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 16, 2008 2:33 PM:

" Napafamily, exposing your son to lifestyles your not supportive of? So if it turns out he's gay, what you're saying is you wouldn't be supportive of him. A person is born straight or gay. It is NOT a choice. So that's real open-minded of you. You'd sooner disown him than support him. Boy I'm glad I didn't have parents like that!! If this "fear" is all about children in school being taught about gay marriage and a fear your kid is going to "become" gay as a result of being taught, I have news for you. It doesn't work that way. People aren't taught to be gay or straight. You are born with or without it, period!! All this is is FEAR! "

John Richards wrote on Nov 16, 2008 2:36 PM:

" Baraki wrote: "The only issue I have with that demonstration is the flagrant disrespect they showed for the American flag by flying it below their rainbow flag."
It's really symptomatic and iconic of the whole 'rainbow' movement: a preoccupation with promoting selfish values first, and to heck with decorum and deeply held traditions or anything the rest of society cherishes. "

hellokitty wrote on Nov 16, 2008 2:38 PM:

" oooooo GOSH!! This is just dumb, Go do it in San Francisco and stop invading the napa valley streets! By the Way I do Agree what "NAPAFAMILY" said "I'm sorry if it didn't go your way, but grow up and deal with it!"

c'mon People lets just get on with our lives!!!! ya losts and thats, that, stop being like a kindergarner, whinning, and want's everything their way! Learn to lose, ya already had to chances!!!! "

str8fornoh8 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 2:38 PM:

" To napafamily:

What about my child, who will now be taught in school about the California Constitution which, thanks to Prop 8, directly contradicts MY moral values, which include equal treatment under the law? Do you propose your "moral values" are superior to mine? Do you propose the state should promote yours over mine? I can only hope your children learn enough in school about the true reasons for the American Revolution and that they, too, break away from an authority of "Christian" tyranny. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 16, 2008 2:43 PM:

" sjsongbird wrote "I am so tired of clueless people who believed the lies and deceptions of the "Yes On 8" campaign." If you really believe that a whopping 52% of the electorate fell for lies and deceptions then it is really you who is deceived. To call pro-8 voters "homophobes" as you did shows total disrespect for your fellow citizens and borders on slander. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 16, 2008 2:58 PM:

" tris8 wrote " ...even the act of flag burning is protected under the law as an act of free speech." That may be the law, but I don't agree with it. To me it is equivalent to the forbidden shouting of "Fire" in a crowded theater, and the law should treat flag burning acts like it does 'fighting words'. As a veteran who fought for this country, I can assure you that I (and most other patriotic citizens) will oppose any cause that dishonors the U.S. flag. "

krusty wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:01 PM:

" napafamily, schools will not be forced to teach anyone about gay marriage. What if, as your son got older, he realized he was more attracted to men than women? I would assume you wouldn't love your son any less based on what gender he is attracted to. Would it be anyone elses fault your son was attracted to the same sex? Do you assume that someone telling a child that men can marry other men would suddenly attract them to the opposite sex?

Children will be exposed to the gay lifestyle whether gay marriage is allowed or not. People shouldn't be afraid of someone because of the gender they are attracted to. Homosexuality isn't going to disappear. Love and tolerance seems much better than hate and discrimination to me. "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:05 PM:

" Don't compare same-sex marriage to polygamy or pedophilia! We're talking about marriage between two people! Who cares what parts they have underneath their clothes! Get past your fear people. Prop 8 is hate. Don't pretend it isn't. "

lacerkki1 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:08 PM:

" How come when there is an article with our children doing something good at school or at an event we are lucky to even get one picturee and this is so important that there are several? "

Maya wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:17 PM:

" The people have spoken. I'm glad my voice was heard. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:26 PM:

" Praise God that Prop 8 passed! Marriage is and should ALWAYS be defined as the union between 1 man and 1 woman.

The doctrine of "separation of church and state is often misapplied and misunderstood. First, the words "separation of church and state" are NOT in the Constitution. Second, the doctrine of "separation of church and state" PROTECTS my right to vote in accordance with my RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. That is my right and I'm proud to say that I exercised my right TWICE when I voted YES on PROP 22 and YES on PROP 8.

Shame on Douglas Monroe of the Methodist Church who grossly misrepresented God's Word. The Bible is clear that homosexual behavior is sinful. Shame on him for assuming that his own beliefs are superior to God's Word. That is truly an abomination.

There is NO analogy between the banning of same-sex marriage and the prohibition against interracial marriage. The allowance of persons of different races to marry each other did NOT redefine the traditional definition of marriage which is the union between 1 man and 1 woman.

Marriage was on the ballot in 30 states and all 30 times marriage won!

To those who flew the homosexual flag over the flag of the United States of America: that is unpatriotic and so disrespectful. "

winghunter wrote on Nov 16, 2008 4:19 PM:

" Hawkeye... I will stop comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy or pedophilia when you stop comparing it to civil rights acts of the 60's. BTW.. it is called gay marriage not equality. "

bob2 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 4:25 PM:

" These protesters are probably the same people that show up shouting at all the other liberal protests when someone doesn't agree with them. They are the true enlightened ones,the educated ones, the progressive ones , the possessors of Truth, who can't stand anyone who dares disagree with them. Fools and hypocrites, march on!! "

Annabella wrote on Nov 16, 2008 4:41 PM:

" Wrong ! This is NOT about civil rights. It is about gay rights. All the semanticsm, whinning and demands in the world won't change the fact you different. All the political moves you have accomplished ...you have not fooled the public. They have said No for now but you cannot accept or respect the democratic process.
x2 "

elb wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:02 PM:

" May I encourage those who are YES on 8 to google search the boycott list (Also known as the "harassment and religious persecution list" that the homosexual community has compiled and is presently circulating, inciting their fellow supporters to call, email, boycott and harass the people on this list for their having exercised their freedom to express their views, support their causes and vote.

Once you have found this list, please contact these people with your encouraging words and consider as best you can to use their services in the future to help offset this horrific injustice that is going on.

(Read this slowly, 'cause it's easy to get the Yes and No people mixed up) Many in the homosexual community are further harassing the Yes on 8 contributors into supporting the No on 8 cause for in some cases "double the dollar amount" they contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign.

These yes on 8 people are being extorted into donating to the No on 8 campaign or else "be subject to further harassment and or boycotting."

The accounts and stories are out there, but I haven't found them in the mainstream media. Once you find the list, you can start googling some of the names and businesses who contributed and you will see what some of these homosexuals and their supporters are blogging and encouraging their people to do to those people on the list. It's scary! "

pharper wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:03 PM:

" The level of hatred in these comments is sickening.

The protest was peaceful and rspectful. The speakers never used any disparaging language or hateful words. Everyone was kind, courteous, and open. Pastor Monroe spoke about the views of his church, the Methodist church, which performs gay marriages--it just goes to show there's more than one interpretation of the Bible, all the more reason not to indoctrinate it into our state constitution.

I wonder how many of you know that the word "homosexual" wasn't even around until the nineteenth century. I wonder how many of you support the stoning of adulterers, the selling of daughters into slavery, the presentation of two of your children to an angry mob as a "sacrifice," making divorce illegal, and making women once more subservient to their husbands. You want to incorporate the Bible into our Constitution, that's fine, but you can't pick in choose--we have to include all of it. "

pharper wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:03 PM:

" Finally, for those of you who say to get over it—would you tell the blacks to “get over it” when the court ruled that separate but equal was fair in Plessy v. Ferguson? Would you tell women to “get over it” when their first attempts at getting the right to vote were ignored and laughed at? We will NOT get over it—all men are created equal, and we have every intention of fighting until people respect that founding principle of our country.

“In Germany they first came for the Communists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

--The Reverend Martin Niemöller, a pastor in the German Confessing Church who spent seven years in a concentration camp. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:11 PM:

" Praise God that Prop 8 passed! Marriage is and should ALWAYS be defined as the union between 1 man and 1 woman.

The doctrine of "separation of church and state is often misapplied and misunderstood. First, the words "separation of church and state" are NOT in the Constitution. Second, the doctrine of "separation of church and state" PROTECTS my right to vote in accordance with my RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. That is my right and I'm proud to say that I exercised my right TWICE when I voted YES on PROP 22 and YES on PROP 8.

Shame on Douglas Monroe of the Methodist Church who grossly misrepresented God's Word. The Bible is clear that homosexual behavior is sinful.

There is NO analogy between the banning of same-sex marriage and the prohibition against interracial marriage. The allowance of persons of different races to marry each other did NOT redefine the traditional definition of marriage which is the union between 1 man and 1 woman.

Marriage was on the ballot in 30 states and all 30 times marriage won!

To those who flew the homosexual flag over the flag of the United States of America: that is unpatriotic and so disrespectful. "

1cooldude wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:41 PM:

" Hello everyone. I know that this is a very sore subject for everyone. Here is my feelings about Prop.8 and homosexuality. From its beginning, the US has been founded on the Christian faith, like it or not. What this all boils down to is our beliefs. And some of us make decisions according to our beliefs. I voted against prop 8 because I believe in what God the Father and Jesus said about homosexuality. That is my right. Some voted against it and that was your right. The majority has spokenand I am glad. "

1cooldude wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:59 PM:

" One more thing, WHY ARE YOU GAY AND LESBIANS TARGETING THE MORMON AND OTHER CHRISTIAN CHURCHES? All they did was contribute financially and guide their congregations to vote with their a Christian consciences. DON'T BLAME AND PERSECUTE THEM, BLAME US WHO ACTUALLY VOTED. Also, understand this, if Jesus was preaching today, He and His fallowers would be persecuted because fallowing Christ's teachings, sets us in conflict with the world's or society's belief. So I am happy to be persecuted for my faith. Thank you for giving us that blessing. "

Hawkeye wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:30 PM:

" Well, MissNapaValley. Homosexuality sinful you say? Hate is sinful. That's exactly what yes on 8 is. Hate. If the bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful and we know homosexuality is NOT A CHOICE, then what do you propose the homosexuals do? Live a life of shame? That's pretty much what you're implying. Then look where religion has got us. Your interpretation of the bible sure hasn't brought love has it? Doesn't god teach us to love? DOES HE?! "

Hawkeye wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:37 PM:

" If the bible is clear about anything, it's that it's made a lot of haters out of people who take everything they read literally. So if the bible said you had to jump off a bridge, would you do it? I'll bet a lot of die-hard Christians would. That's why I'm glad I don't live in the deep south. It's sad to see the hate is very much alive and well. Hate is all based on fear and ignorance. "

verum wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:38 PM:

" 40 years ago, a presidential candidate by the name of Geo. Wallace would not have shaken the hand of a little boy named Barack Obama. Think about that. "

mof2 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:40 PM:

" Years ago before I moved to Napa, I was told by a black co worker that Napa County was off limits to blacks. I thought his comment was a poor joke. Unfortunately after I lived here a while I understood and was horrified at what he had suggested might be true.
After reading today's blog, it seems apparent that while this is several years later, hate and intolerance are alive and well in Napa County. Fortunately, the majority of Napa County voters voted for President Elect Obama and also voted No on Prop 8. Maybe it's time for you who are NOT in the majority to move somewhere else. You might fit in better in Utah or the deep south.
Get the facts right. Civil Unions do not provide the same benefits as marriage. Your child will not become gay by associating with or hearing about gays and lesbians. If you have a child now, chances are he/she will be going to school with many gays and lesbians since, thank goodness, the taboo has been lifted from these people among us and they no longer have to hide in fear amongst us heterosexuals for fear of being ostracized. I was at the rally yesterday and my feeling was that the majority of the group was gasp, heterosexual. You 'Yes on 8' people may not be able to sleep at night if you think there are 400-500 gays and lesbians in your fair city. "

napkin7 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:40 PM:

" the blatant ignorance of some of these comments in exactly why prop 8 did not pass. exactly when has marriage ever been taught in a public school? the bottom line is ignorance = hate. everyone is entitled to their unalienable rights as an American, why is it so hard to allow everyone that right? Human beings are human beings and if everyone in this world could learn to practice a little humanity towards one another it would be a much better place. "

1cooldude wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:42 PM:

" This is for hawkeye. who ever you are, I have not heared any scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is inheretent. So untill you have proof, you have no bairing. So, to me, it will allways be A LIFESTYLE CHOICE. Once again it all goes back to beliefs. I believe one way (God's way) and you believe in your way. I cannot change your belief any more than you can change mine. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:20 PM:

" It's pretty obvious that the folks who voted to deprive gays of equal rights are very happy with their vote. Just read the smug bigotry here.

Gays are not going back into the closet any more than black people are going to go back to chains and slavery.

In Napa County, Prop 8 lost the vote and the anti-gay rights vote numbers are falling election cycle by election cycle.

The self-styled 'Christian' churches are learning that the more they mix with temporal politics the less like 'Christians' they act.

Jesus didn't try to take over governments, he tried to change hearts and the so-called Christian right is failing to follow the example set by the Prince of Peace.

~Ruff "

winemd wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:32 PM:

" I wish that people would stop stereotyping the "deep south". People there are no worse or better than people here. People object to others who stereotype homosexuals, but feel no compunction in painting a different group of people with a very broad brush. "

antipc wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:46 PM:

" So, being American is is secondary to being homosexual.

Good luck with Muslim tolerance. "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:07 PM:

" 1cooldude, homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle choice. I know people who are homosexual and not one of them will tell you it's a lifestyle choice. They were BORN WITH IT!! Is that proof enough?! Some of them were ashamed of it early in life and wish they could be hetero. So what does that tell you? Not one gay person will tell you it was their choice. "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:08 PM:

" Pure ignorance I tell you, pure ignorance!! "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:14 PM:

" Talk to a few gay people cooldude, it might enlighten you, if you can stop being afraid for a minute. And I have not heard any scientific evidence that god said homosexuality is wrong. So in your words, "So untill you have proof, you have no bairing. " Whatever "bairing" means. You meant "bearing" right? If you're gonna talk to me about "scientific proof", then scientific proof can't back up what you say either. "

zist707 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:24 PM:

" i suggest you all read the history of why people really think homosexuality is wrong and how homophobia has its roots in ignorance.
this is a good article:

http://www.bidstrup.co/phobiahistory.htm "

zist707 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:32 PM:

" i suggest you all read the history of why people really think homosexuality is wrong and how homophobia has its roots in ignorance. there's a good article online but i can't post links on here so for all of those who are interested: go on Google and search "history of homophobia". it should be the first link "

debstallings wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:35 PM:

" To all the people worried about the flag issue, please rest assured that NO disrespect was meant to the American Flag at ALL! I saw the people doing this and they were just trying to attach one flagpole to the other. They had two flagpoles - one longer than the other and they just evened up the ends to be carried so that one person could carry both flags. It was a very unfortunate and completely unintentional mistake that the rainbow flag was on the taller pole. I can speak for myself and for most of the people there and say we absolutely respect our flag and those (including our gay brothers and lesbian sisters) who have paid the ultimate price to defend the flag. Without their sacrafices, we wouldn't have the right to protest what we believe is discrimination. We believe the flag to be the very symbol of what we are fighting for - LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL! So please accept that we meant NO discrespect to the flag and let the conversation return to what is really at issue here - discrimination. Just because a slim majority of CA voters approved the discrimination, doesn't mean it's right. The supreme court has to protect the minority from the majority when there is discrimination involved. The court will rule on this and if need be, we'll vote on it again. Ulltimately, the discrimination won't stand. Progress may be glacial, but it does come. One day, we'll all be equal...but until then, we will continue to march, we'll continue to sing, we'll continue to educate and hopefully a few hearts and minds will change along the way. Peace out... "

debstallings wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:43 PM:

" To anyone who is feeling bummed out about the h8ers who blog here, remember this - MORE THAN 55% OF NAPA COUNTY VOTED NO ON 8! Hallalujah! More of our neighbors are kind, tolerant, reasonable people who are supportive of equality. Don't let these guys get you down! Napa is a very cool place to live and it's getting cooler all the time!
Peace out... "

str8fornoh8 wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:14 PM:

" A quote from the trial court justifying Virginia’s law criminalizing interracial marriage, challenged by the Lovings in the 1960s:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.”

In Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law, holding “Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival…”

To preempt an argument that survival means “procreation,” reason dictates appreciation that marriage is fundamental to survival because it legally and emotionally binds families. Married couples, straight or gay, young or old, with or without producing children, married in a church or by a civil authority, provide economic and emotional support to those connected to them as families based on a pledge of love and commitment. In order to have that pledge legally recognized, any couple of consenting adults should be able to walk into a County Clerk’s office and receive a marriage license. Anything less (e.g., domestic partnership) denies equal protection of the law providing for marriage, protection guaranteed by the Constitution to all.

Under Dwayne’s logic, the Lovings, arrested in Virginia, should not have thrown a tantrum because the majority, justified by religious beliefs supporting separation of the races, had spoken. And just like “amigo” surely many in the country at that time wished people like the Lovings would “get the hint” that the majority didn’t want their tradition of white superiority and racial oppression disturbed.

True democracy strives to shield fundamental rights from the tyranny of the majority. "

cedwardswine wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:30 PM:

" To the individual that attacked Mr. Edwards comments Marriage is a civil rights issue. Period. Those that voted yes are on the wrong side of history and never experienced a violation of civil rights. I´d encourage you to revisit history, travel to the south where I was raised and you will come to appreciate the moral victory of freedom. "

common sense wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:33 PM:

" I love the way people try to tie gay marriage to racial discrimination. Nobody is telling gays to ride in the back of the bus or to use separate drinking fountains.

Society chooses which characteristics to tax and which characteristics to reward. Cigarettes and gasoline are taxed because of the problems (and related costs) they cause. Hybrid vehicles are rewarded with special carpool lane privileges because enough people agree that there is a benefit...are those in regular vehicles being discriminated against? Traditional marriage is rewarded because it is a simple policy that provides clear benefits to society. Study after study shows a string correlation between one man/one woman couples and well-adjusted children. Gay couples do not show that correlation. Until a voting majority sees clear benefits, gay marriage will not be legal. Temper tantrums, attempting to tie the issue to racial discrimination, calling Yes on Prop 8 voters fascists, and violent protests will do absolutely NOTHING to endear the average voter to the cause. "

pharper wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:43 PM:

" Clearly you haven't done your research, common sense, because the evidence DOES show that correlation. Just look it up--I could even provide you with links, if you'd like.

Uh...what violent protests are you talking about? I was at this one, and there wasn't ANYTHING violent about it.

I'd advise that people become informed before they even bother to post. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:06 PM:

" pharper wrote: "those of you who say to get over it—would you tell the blacks to “get over it."
As I wrote earlier in this thread, this issue has nothing to do with civil rights, although the pro-gay marriage crowd loves to wrap itself in the mantle of 'civil rights'. It is a slur on the real civil rights movement to compare your cause with one that had real, substantive issues. Thank God the black voters in this state saw through that subterfuge! "

Hawkeye wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:21 PM:

" And, violent protests you say? Based on the above article they were peaceful. I'm sorry, but yes on 8 seems a little fascist to me. "

Miss Halley wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:24 PM:

" I just returned from Mass. I did ask several parents regarding this issue.

GAY MARRIAGE OR NON GAY MARRIAGE
IS NOT TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS.

BLOGGERS PLEASE NOTE YOUR
NEIGHBORS VOTED IN FAVOR OF GAY
MARRIAGE. "

napafamily wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:29 PM:

" I agree with the idea that homosexuality is a lifestyle CHOICE! I worked with a gal who told me she was a lesbian. We became friends and hung out quite a bit. While out with my husband and his friends this gal would flirt with my husband's MALE buddies and tell me how she thought this one was "hot" and she'd date that one.... She even mentioned that she hadn't dated a man simply because she had never been asked out by one. Give me a break. Clearly being with women is a CHOICE for her! The bottom line for me is not hate or discrimination. I am sick and tired of the childish behavior. These people lost the vote. Majority voiced their opinion and it was in favor of Prop 8. I am tired of people throwing a fit when they don't get their way. Why is it that the rules only apply to some people and not to everyone??? I've voted no on all the school bonds that have passed over the past few years because I can barely afford my property taxes. How about I just not pay that part of my taxes since I voted against them and they passed anyway. I didn't get my way in the vote so why should I have to pay? Wahhhh! Good night folks. "

napafamily wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:42 PM:

" Oh, and speaking of ignorance. I don't believe it is the proponents of Prop 8 who are ignorant! Over the course of the past few months I have seen numerous Yes on 8 signs defaced and vandalized. I have seen homes and cars spray painted and vandalized because their owners were showing support for Prop 8. Now we can't have an opinion or share our beliefs for fear of retaliation by those who disagree with us! Talk about immature, disrespectful and undeserving of the right of freedom of speech! I thank the Lord Prop 8 passed! Yes, I realize a few bad apples are responsible for this behavior but it is that very behavior that makes me support the proposition even more. "

1cooldude wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:51 PM:

" This is to hawkeye: So you just proved my point, thank you. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT ANYONE IS BORN WITH HOMOSEXUALITY. And as far as proof of what I believe, I believe in the bible. Please go to Leviticus 18 verses 22. It says"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." Pritty spacific. I am not a racist or a biget or a homophobe. I am just a believer in the scriptures. You don't believe in the scripters any more than I believe homosexuality is hereditary. "

whoa cowboy wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:51 AM:

" Well, it wasn't only the Mormons and the Catholics that voted. 75% of all black voters voted YES on 8. The Hispanic voters we just about the same percentage. "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:05 AM:

" Supporters of Prop 8 were absolutely terrified that children would be taught about gay mariage in school if the proposition did not pass.

Now that it passed and is a State Constitutional Amendment every child will see this amendment as soon as they are required to study the State Constitution.

The irony! Wow! Not only did the supporters strip individual's rights away, but now school children will be FORCED to understand the meaning of the amendment. Maybe textbooks can just call it "The-Amendment-That-Will-Not-Be-Mentioned". Nice job! "

Reality Check wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:55 AM:

" Listen up al-Gayda! Stop trying to bully everyone into rewriting the dictionary. Get off the streets and back into the bedroom, where behind closed doors no fair minded person cares what you do.
Haven't you figured out that as a political group you are your own worst enemies. Have some more mayors say they're going to cram it down our throats, bus a few more kids to a gay wedding during school hours, picket a few more businesses, and please, keep marching. And then put it on the ballot again; next time you'll lose by an even larger margin. "

pharper wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:14 AM:

" The majority is not always right. Bottom line. Do you think slavery would have been outlawed if it had been put to a vote? Do you think they would have legalized interracial marriage if it had been put to a vote? JR, I know you like to convince yourself that this isn't a civil rights issue, but that's simply not true.

It IS a civil rights issue. We are deliberately denying a significant group of people their civil rights based on the religion of the majority--that's called tyranny by majority, and it's WHY we have our courts. Many biblical arguments were used against interracial marriage, the same as are used about homosexual marriage. Are you aware that the word "homosexual" didn't even exist until the nineteenth century? Not to mention, the word "abomination" meant in Hebrew "against the social or cultural norm." Eating shellfish was also an "abomination," but I'm sure you have no Biblical or moral objection to that.

I hope it's not put up for a vote again--the courts will overturn it, because it's unjust, wrong, and hateful. It is BIGOTRY and we have just indoctrinated it into our state constitution. Gee, I'm so proud...not. "

mominapa wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:28 AM:

" Ah, well, where to begin! Smartypants, thank you for your excellent comments. So true. I would like to mention the following to those who keep quoting the Bible. Good book for sure, but it was written when most people thought the world was flat, stoning was legal, slavery was legal and polygamy was the norm. Women had no rights other than those given by their husbands and so many other things that are so wrong by today's standards.

To those who are "irritated" by the constant protesting. You say to keep things the way they are because you like it that way. If we all felt like you do, we would still be ruled by an English Monarch. No protest, no progress. Every thing we have in this country that we can call truly American was achieved by protesting the status quo when we felt it was wrong or against our freedoms. I daresay that you won't find too many people these days who will say the "N" word out loud to an African American even if they think it. We have come too far and that is thanks to protests, lunch counter sit ins, marches on Washington and a hero called Martin Luther King, Jr. and those like him. We have elected an African American president and I am overjoyed. Now, let's get back to protesting that which we feel is unfair and make a difference. Do NOT stop protesting or we will go nowhere. I am not gay, but I want my children to live in a world that does not discriminate against any group. "

jmo wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:18 AM:

" Ok maybe this will get posted.
Someone asked the question "is gay marriage hurting anyone?” That's a smoke screen. The question is now and has always been "what is the definition of marriage?" It has been asked and answered twice.
This is a civil right issue....just look how African Americans abandon the no vote on Prop 8. They voted overwhelmingly (70%) for Prop 8. Yet they voted 95%+ for Obama. And, don't tell the old and tired cliché that African Americans are homophobic. African Americans know what a civil rights issue is and what a civil right issue isn’t. "

str8fornoh8 wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:07 AM:

" To John Richards - the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly identified marriage as a CIVIL RIGHT. To deny the Court's role in defining civil rights is to deny the foundational role of the three branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial, in case anyone forgets their basic civics) at the heart of American democracy, and laid out in the Constitution. This system serves to protect the rights of all, not just promote the "ideals" of the majority. "

Fire Mike wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:14 AM:

" 1cooldude – I hate to burst your bubble, but when you claim that, “From its beginning, the US has been founded on the Christian faith, like it or not,” you are so completely off base that you’re not even in the ball park. If you’d take the time to read the US Constitution, you’ll see that there is not one mention of your Bible, your God, or any other supernatural beings. This is not an accident. The United States was not “founded on” any religion. In fact, the Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by President John Adams in 1797, states quite clearly that, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” According to Article VI, Section II of your Constitution (which, again, I invite you to read) the above-mentioned treaty is the “supreme Law of the Land.”

You may not like gays. You may believe in supernatural beings. That’s all fine. All we ask is that you not try to force your religious beliefs on the rest of us. (And it might be a good idea to read your Constitution before you make unsubstantiated claims about what is says.) "

Maven wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:44 AM:

" At one time, it wouldn't have been hard to find 90% of the people in California opposing same-sex marriage (the same percentage once opposed interracial marriage, too). The previous vote was 62% opposed to same-sex marriage. Last vote was 52% opposed.

All the kids who have frequented our house have been talking about same-sex marriage. Most had never even thought about homosexuality or same-sex marriage UNTIL this became an issue on the ballot. Even among the high school kids, the California Supreme Court ruling wasn't common knowledge, but this election changed everything. Even elementary school aged children are now talking about same-sex marriage, and want to know more about children with same-sex parents. This has fueled curiosity in a big way.

Thanks to Proposition 8, kids are now far more informed about homosexuality and far more interested in discussing the topic, although not necessarily with their parents.

And, regardless of how their parents voted, most of these young people have no problem with same-sex marriage. They are the future voters, and all the polls indicate that they are far more inclusive than their parents. If this issue remains with the voters, it will be the views of these young people who prevail. "

WHY wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:47 AM:

" I am a christian who voted yes on 8. Something that was said this Sunday from a well known guest speaker that hit home for me was this. He said that the reason the No on 8 has been gaining ground is that we as People and Christians do not take Marriage seriously anymore, the divorce rate is at an all time high and we as adults that beleive are not doing are part as parents to teach our children the values of marriage and that it is not to be taken lightly. You marry you stay married and work through the issues. It is much are fault for not holding and teaching our children the value of marriage and we as christians have the Nerve to point our fingers at the gays and lesbians. This is our own doing. I encourage you to teach your children the value of marriage and set the example from a loving home. Show your children that their mother and father can work through issues and still love one another. "

Maven wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:08 AM:

" WHY-

I'm not sure your guest preacher has it correct as to why No on 8 is gaining ground, but it does demonstrate some hypocrisy.

Barna (a conservative Christian think tank) has found that conservative Christians have one of the highest divorce rates.

And, when Christians ignore that Jesus himself said that remarriage after divorce was adultery, we make it clear that we are looking for "loopholes" for ourselves and "rewriting" traditional religious beliefs, while asking others (gays and lesbians) to adhere to a strict literal interpretation that may not even be accurate.

My child noted with irony that her grandparents, strong Christians married over 50 years, were labeled "opponents of traditional marriage" because they opposed Proposition 8. Yet, a friend's mother, a conservative Christian, had been married and divorced multiple times and a woman down the street with a "Yes on 8" sign had children from various men, a couple of whom she had married and divorced.

This is not an argument between people who "support" marriage and those who "oppose" marriage. Christians disagree on this issue, in growing numbers. Even among the Christians I know who believe that homosexuality is sinful, there is growing disagreement about whether we do God any service by demanding that secular law force people to abide by our religious beliefs.

If so, shouldn't Christians FIRST push for law forbidding divorce and remarriage, as those are issues affecting far MORE people than same-sex marriage? Then, it would at least appear we were looking at the plank in our OWN eyes before trying to find a speck in the eye of another. "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:10 AM:

" Napafamily: Your lesbian friend might be bi-sexual. Did that possibly occur to you? Homosexuality is a spectrum. There are those who are 100% gay, some are in between and there are those that are 100% straight. Did your friend TELL YOU that it was her choice? You failed to mention that part. Because if you used what you said as your argument, then you obviously and clearly don't understand what homosexuality is. They will tell you that is was NOT a lifestyle choice any more than they chose to be white, black, hispanic or whatever.

And to Cooldude: You're quoting an antiquated book. And taking it literally. You can't apply old rules to a modern society. It breeds hate and ignorance.

And yes, this IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. How can it not be? Isn't marriage a "civil union"? Wow, you yes on 8 voters really need to do some homework and updating! "

krusty wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:31 AM:

" That's true, WHY. That's what I don't understand. The pro 8 crowd is to busy keeping people who love each other from getting married. They need to fix the heterosexual marriage process. It's stupid that as a man, I can meet any woman on the street and marry them before I know anything about them, yet two men who love each other cannot be married. The "protect the sanctity of marriage" argument is bogus. People love to place a high value on marriage when it comes to denying the right to marry to homosexual couples, yet heterosexual couples still have a divorice rate of 50%.
------
Napafamily, some people may be confused about their sexuality. For the majority of people, it is not a choice. If it were a choice, why would homosexual teens be two to three times more likely to attempt suicide. Wouldn't it be easier for them to change their mind and like the opposite sex instead? "

gemini105 wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:56 AM:

" Just my two cents here:

From my view, both sides have people that are at the extremes in intimidation and just plain hate. I've seen plenty of news about both sides yelling and bullying others who voted against their side. To label one side as the hateful/bigoted/phobic side is blatantly trying to cover for their own side. However, I personally take a greater insult to those that label the pro 8 people as fascists. As a person who studies history, comparing people to the Nazi's is just shameful. Remember, the Nazi's were responsible for one of the worst wars in human history. Voting for 8 has caused how many deaths?

The pro 8 side won because they had better organization, and several public events played into their hands. Gavin's speach about gay marriage "whether you like it or not," the teachers wedding, and the incredibly shameful tv ad about the Morman church plotting to take away everyone's rights gave undecided voters plenty to chew on, and they ultimately voted for 8. I was undecided till seeing some of these, and a couple things just made me cringe. I ultimately voted no on it, but its still a close call in my mind.

And as a Christian, I am quite used to getting mocked nearly daily in the news or by celebrities or whatever public figure. However, to say that because of my religious faith I am a racist, bigoted, ignorant person is just plain wrong. I am college educated, married, and have different opinions (conservative and liberal) depending on the issue. So please, have a debate or civil discussion instead of resorting to the easy out of name calling. You'll find that you might be able to sway some people easier that way. "

bimgroup wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:54 PM:

" Fire Mike: You're correct that the word God doesn't appear in the text of the constitution. However the word God, or a reference to a divine creator, does appear in every state constitution. The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is textual. The Preamble is modeled after the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation.

Since you're so good at history Mike, you might want to quote the Declaration of Independance. You no the one that talks about being our Creator!! God loves you pal!!! "

Sandra wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:18 PM:

" Whose brilliant idea was it to fly the gay flag OVER the American flag???? Just shows Idiots come from both sides of this issue.
While I voted against 8, I feel judges do not have the right to overturn this, It should go up to another vote of the people.
I really do not see that the marriage issue should be such a big deal. It is just a word. Marriage, civil union, both grant the same rights.
I object to an amendment to our state constitution taking away rights of legal citizens.
THAT is what this issue should be about.
Society will come around concerning the word "Marriage"....But we should all strongly object to an amendment taking rights away from people. IT IS A BAD PRECEDENT TO SET!
I hope we have the opportunity to vote on repealling 8 with people understanding that our state constitution should not be removing rights of citizens who pay taxes, and contribute as much as the next guy. "

pharper wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:34 PM:

" Sandra, it was an unhappy accident--debstallings posted above to explain it. I agree that it probably ddn't give the best image of the protest, but I can assure you it was a very respectful and patriotic day. =D

And if the courts don't do it, who will? it's why we have the courts--to protect people from a tyrannical majority. "

over55 wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:49 PM:

" I was one who voted for Prop 8. I did so after much soulsearching. I have many friends who are gay. I believe that gays should have the legal rights accorded by a civil union. I believe that a gay person should have the right to visit his/her partner in a hospital room, to share tax benefits, etc. However, I firmly believe that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony is only between a man and a woman. As a result, I felt it necessary to vote yes on 8. By the way, I am neither Catholic nor Mormon. I am a Christian. What does Jewish law or the Quran say about this issue? "

John Richards wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:59 PM:

" str8fornoh8 wrote "To John Richards - the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly identified marriage as a CIVIL RIGHT."
Please cite your source for that statement. I don't recall any marriage issues coming before that court in the recent past. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:06 PM:

" over55 wrote: "What does Jewish law or the Quran say about this issue? "
I'm pretty sure that both the Quran and traditional Orthodox Jewish law would prohibit gay marriage. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:11 PM:

" Sandra wrote: " It should go up to another vote of the people."
For heavens sake, why? Isn't twice enough?
I would like to see a binding nationwide vote on this issue. This state-by-state patchwork is confusing for all concerned. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:21 PM:

" Thanks, gemini105. I agree with your call for civil discourse without demeaning your opponents or calling them hateful names. I also agree that at least two of the anti-8 TV ads were atrocious: the one about the Mormon missionaries doing a home invasion of a lesbian couple, and the one showing Japanese Americans being interned during WWII. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:31 PM:

" Maven wrote: "Christians ignore that Jesus himself said that remarriage after divorce was adultery." You're conveniently leaving out a few things. The New Testament clearly teaches that divorce (and remarriage) is permitted when one of the partners is unfaithful to the other. Granted, some Christians divorce on flimsier grounds, but there is no requirement for Christians to be perfect in all respects. Jesus preached that "adultery" statement as part of his Sermon on the Mount, the purpose of which was to show we have all fallen short of perfection and are in need of salvation. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:42 PM:

" MarshaMarsha wrote: "school children will be FORCED to understand the meaning of the amendment."
Gasp! School children will be taught that marriage is the relationship between their mommy and daddy? Oh, the scandalous nature of it all! "

Fire Mike wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:45 PM:

" Bimgroup – the point here is that many people falsely believe, like 1cooldude, that the United States is a “Christian” nation, and that our laws should follow Biblical principles. Leaving aside the insurmountable obstacle of deciding which “biblical principles” should take precedence – Mormon? Catholic? Methodist? – the fact remains that our nation is not in any way founded on such principles, and religious arguments have absolutely no place in deciding public policy.

Over55 – while the “sacrament of Holy Matrimony” may be limited to a heterosexual couple, this is a matter for your church to decide. In California, marriage is a civil institution, over which churches have no jurisdiction. State law recognizes wedding ceremonies performed by clergy, but does not (and cannot) mandate that any such ceremony be so “blessed.” While I respect your right to believe and practice your religion, I hope that someday you will also offer me the same respect, and not try to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us. "

str8fornoh8 wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:12 PM:

" For JR:
Loving v. Virgina, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Virginia law criminalizing interracial marriage, holding that “Marriage is one of the "BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival…” See my post above.

Mrs. Loving, arrested then, and who stood up with her white husband for her civil right to marry, said this in 2007:

"Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about." "

John Richards wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:12 PM:

" Maven wrote: "Barna (a conservative Christian think tank) has found that conservative Christians have one of the highest divorce rates." That made me curious, so I studied the material on their website. It does not agree with your statement. Here are the divorce stats according to the Barna survey:
Low income (39%), Baby Boomers (38%), non-Christian faith (38%), African-Americans (36%), politically liberal (37%), Catholics (28%), evangelicals (26%), middle/upper income (22%), Asians (20%), politically conservative (28%). For Christians as a combined group the stats were 33%, but the survey did not determine if the divorce for Christians occurred before or after accepting Christianity. Previous research indicates that only 20% of Christians divorce after accepting Christianity. Also, the stats for non-religious groups are distorted because of lower rates of marriage and a higher likelihood of cohabitation without marriage. "

ReneeFannin wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:26 PM:

" A comment on the flag situation: The individual who chose to fly the gay flag over the American flag did so after being advised to please use the American flag in place of the gay flag. His choice to do so was an individual one and DOES NOT represent the gay community or the protesters present on that day. Our Napa community and the organizers of the protest agree that the gay flag should NEVER be flown over the American flag and regret that ONE individual chose to do so. He made a mistake. It was a poor choice by an individual .It does not represent the community nor the people present at the protest. Let it rest. "

winemd wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:55 PM:

" I agree with Sandra "I really do not see that the marriage issue should be such a big deal. It is just a word. Marriage, civil union, both grant the same rights." And that goes for those who want to define marriage in the constitution AND those who won't settle for anything other than marriage. So much emotion on both sides isn't productive and doesn't move us forward. "

lovemesomerightwing wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:06 PM:

" Really Hawkeye, because four judges overturning the will of the people seems a little fascist to ME! "

choirdanny wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:19 PM:

" I think it should be repealed. Any reasons against gay marriage is moral or religious. It doesn't harm anyone, but it benefits many. I would have gone if I had known about it, but I didn't. "

Hawkeye wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:59 PM:

" Four judges overturning fascism seems like justice to ME!! "

Hawkeye wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:18 PM:

" And the will of the people got it wrong this time, lovesmerightwing. Wow, your name suits you. Oh course you're against gay marriage, why am I not surprised. "

Hawkeye wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:22 PM:

" Alright John Richards, what is your issue with gay marriage? "

John Richards wrote on Nov 18, 2008 12:03 AM:

" str8fornoh8, the U.S. Supreme Court based its decision in Loving v. Virginia partly on the fact marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival…” Clearly gay marriage does not meet the test of being "fundamental to our very existence and survival." Also, a few years later, in Baker v. Nelson, the Court ruled that a Minnesota law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples did not violate the United States Constitution. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 18, 2008 12:15 AM:

" Hawkeye wrote: "Four judges overturning fascism seems like justice to ME!! "
What they overturned was the electorate's decision known as Prop 22. It seems rather imprudent to call the 61% majority who passed Prop 22 fascists.
Have you bothered to read the minority opinion of that 4-3 decision? It is quite elegant, actually, and certainly does not smack of fascism. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 18, 2008 12:37 AM:

" Hawkeye wrote: 'Alright John Richards, what is your issue with gay marriage?"

I am a conservative person who does not believe in changing things unless there is a compelling need to do so. Since the beginning of recorded history, marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman. Marriage represents the official recognition of a new nuclear family unit, which in most cases becomes the starting point for conceiving and raising children in a safe and optimum environment that has both male and female role models. This is the building block for society, which we dare not mess with.
Since 2003, gay civil unions in California have had all the rights and privileges that a heterosexual marriage has. So, the current cry about denied rights is hollow. It reminds one of a petulant child who has a hissy fit because he wants his balloon to be the same color as little Johnny's balloon. It just seems as though gays are more interested in antagonizing conservative hets than in obtaining real and substantial rights, like the ones that Martin Luther King fought for. "

lovemesomerightwing wrote on Nov 18, 2008 7:56 AM:

" Hawkeye, it's obvious to me you know the definition for neither justice, or fascist. For the record you're wrong about my feelings on gay marraige. Although I don't think it's right, as long as it doesn't affect MY marriage, which I don't believe it will, I don't have any problem with them getting married. Furthermore, I agree wholeheartedly with John Richards. It just seems like they are trying to shove their gay agenda down everybody's thoats. I for one, am sick of it. "

str8fornoh8 wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:08 AM:

" Baker v. Nelson was a case in the Minnesota Supreme Court. Though it has precendential value by virtue of the U.S. Supreme Court dismissing its appeal, the decision was made in 1971. In 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled its own prior decision in Bowers regarding homosexual sodomy laws. Justice Scalia notes in his dissent to the Lawrence v. Texas decision that the Court's opinion "dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions in so far as marriage is concerned" because the result of the Court's opinion is that there is "no legitimate state interest" in morally disapproving of homosexuality or structuring the law based on such disapproval.

Thank you, Justice Scalia. "

out in napa wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:39 AM:

" How can the bible "teach" that homosexuality is wrong? The bible was translated from Greek and Latin and neither language has a word for homosexuality.
Since everyone that voted Yes on 8 seems so intent on taking away civil rights let's be sure we start taking the black vote and the womens vote away. Let's not forget the interacial marriage rights as well. If all can not have civil rights then nobody should have them. "

krusty wrote on Nov 18, 2008 10:25 AM:

" John Richards, why are people who are to old to concieve allowed to marry and homosexuals aren't if marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival." "

elb wrote on Nov 18, 2008 10:25 AM:

" John Richards,

Before I log off this thing for the day, I wanted to say that I appreciate your contributions to the discussion. "

Maven wrote on Nov 18, 2008 11:41 AM:

" John Richards, you need to reread your Bible. :-) You are ADDING to it.

The New Testament does NOT teach that remarriage is permitted "when one of the partners is unfaithful to the other." The Bible says that a MAN can remarry if his wife has been sexually immoral. This ties back to the Old Testament that permitted a man to have his bride stoned if she wasn't a virgin. It doesn't address adultery. That's a NEW interpretation and it certainly doesn't permit a WOMAN to divorce a cheating husband. Sorry, but as much as we might think this would be fair, we don't get to ADD to the Bible to make it more palatable.

And, no, Christians aren't called to be perfect, but aren't we called to stop that which is sinful? Remarriage, in nearly all cases, is ONGOING and UNREPENTANT sin. Are you saying that Jesus doesn't want people to actually STOP their sin, just know that it exists? If so, why would Christians expect MORE of gays?

As long as Christian churches continue to not only permit, but celebrate, remarriages, it appears that Christians are finding "loopholes" to satisfy their own desires while denying the same to others.

That appears to be ignoring the plank in our own eyes while focusing on the speck in the eyes of others. Not what Christians are called to do, at all. "

Maven wrote on Nov 18, 2008 11:42 AM:

" John Richards –

If you are interested the Barna research, I recommend you purchase the entire studies rather than read the synopsis. It's very interesting information.

Here are a couple of quotes you may wish to consider:

"However, previous research by Barna has shown that less than two out of every ten people who accept Christ as their savior do so after their first marriage." (This indicates that 80% of Christians are Christians at the time of their first divorce.)
"Multiple divorces are also unexpectedly common among born again Christians. Barna’s figures show that nearly one-quarter of the married born agains (23%) get divorced two or more times." (This means that while 35% of Born Again Christians may be divorced, nearly a quarter of them have multiple divorces behind them, which means that a much higher percentage of Born Again marriages fail.)
While there is an ASSUMPTION that people who cohabitate may affect these statistics, it hasn't been proven and even when Barna added in that assumption, it was negligible.
The fact is that it's SHAMEFUL if Christians, who espouse a belief in life long marriage, have no better record than atheists or people who espouse no similar belief as a group. It indicates that our talk about the "sanctity" of marriage isn't demonstrated in how we live our lives. Christians are not acting like we value marriage. "

Maven wrote on Nov 18, 2008 11:43 AM:

" One more thing – California does NOT have "civil unions" for same-sex couples. It has "Domestic Partnerships" which offer SOME of the same rights as marriage.

Kind of like having a separate water fountain that isn't quite as nice. ;-) "

winemd wrote on Nov 18, 2008 1:02 PM:

" California domestic partnership law provides all of the rights of marriage that the state of California has control of. CA Domestic partnership does not grant the same rights as marriage in other states, nor in federal law. Even if same sex marriage became legal in California those two facts would still be the same. "

pianocrazee wrote on Nov 18, 2008 1:59 PM:

" Maven--

You made really valid points. I'd love to see what John says about
THAT...

*applause* "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 18, 2008 2:20 PM:

" Very good points Krusty and Maven. Also, when I said, "Four judges overturning fascism seems like justice to ME.", I meant that as a joke. It wasn't to be taken literally. But John Richards and lovemesomerightwing took it literally. It was supposed to be a humorous comeback! I can't believe you guys took it literally.

But in any event, there seems to be much debate in what rights are granted under "civil unions" vs. "marriage". Any lawyers care to comment? "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 18, 2008 2:21 PM:

" And Ca. domestic partnerships and what rights they include. "

Raven wrote on Nov 19, 2008 6:04 AM:

" missed all the fun being away....and it amazes me to see the hate here.....at what point to it become unpatriotic to express your selves in a protest of a wrong....and the comments show to me that the most common reason people voted for prop 8 was not to support marriage but to show their hate and fear of homosexuals..Prop 8 just gave them a mask to wear as they did it..

now JR....being able to marry is not a substantive right?...you giving it up then? "

marine1/1 wrote on Nov 19, 2008 8:08 AM:

" What a bunch of sore cry baby LOOSERS. The people have spoken twice and the vote was YES on 8. I think everyone that voted for John McCain should start protesting and go staight to the supreme court and demand that the election be thrown out and John McCain should be in office. Who cares what the voters think. Let's just let the courts do all our decisions for us. The President down to the major of every city in America. Gay marriage is disgusting and it is now turning this into hate. The people voted and said YES to 8 TWICE and that should be the end of it. But no, these people think they are above eveyone else and should get their way. Your negative attention plot is making people ANGRY now. Alot of people didn't care to much one way or the other and now that you weird people didn't get your way and are doing all this negative attention protesting, alot of people that didn't care before are now fighting AGAINST you. You LOST!!!!! We recognize a marriage as a woman and a man as it has always been PERIOD. You are sore loosers and bad examples for young people and children through out this country. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 19, 2008 11:42 AM:

" A year before his death in 1987, Bayard Rustin (one of Dr. King's main advisors) said: "The barometer of where one is on human rights questions is no longer the black community, it's the gay community. Because it is the community which is most easily mistreated." "

Raven wrote on Nov 19, 2008 12:51 PM:

" actually marine, if you want to protest and go to the supreme court, by all means do so...it is your right to do so..but I have yet to understand how two people committing themselves to each other out of love for each other could ever be called disgusting..

and marine, how many times does it have to be said...it doesn't matter how many people for for something unconstitutional, it is still constitutional.....protesting that doesn't make the people a bunch of what did you call them...cry baby sore losers...it makes the Americans who are standing up for their rights....and with a moniker of marine I would think you should be especially protective of people trying to defend their rights, of living up to all that the United States stands for...they should be held up as examples for children and young people of what Americans do when they see injustice and a wrong being perpetrated upon their neighbors.... "

John Richards wrote on Nov 19, 2008 11:38 PM:

" Raven wrote: "being able to marry is not a substantive right?..."

Not when we are comparing gay marriage to gay civil unions. What are the substantial differences? "

John Richards wrote on Nov 20, 2008 12:24 AM:

" out in napa wrote " How can the bible "teach" that homosexuality is wrong? The bible was translated from Greek and Latin and neither language has a word for homosexuality."
Just read what Romans 1:26-27 has to say. The word 'homosexuality' is not used, but it is very clear what type of sexual acts it forbids. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 20, 2008 12:30 AM:

" Maven wrote "California...has "Domestic Partnerships" which offer SOME of the same rights as marriage."
So the California Family Code is wrong?
What are all these rights not granted by California's domestic partnerships?
Incidentally, quibbling about whether it is called civil union or domestic partnership is rather petty. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 20, 2008 12:37 AM:

" Maven, as I said in my synopsis of the Barna research, the study points out that they have no data indicating how many of the divorces occurred prior to the individuals accepting Christianity. Without that distinction, the stats about how many divorces Christians have undergone is meaningless. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 20, 2008 12:51 AM:

" krusty wrote: "John Richards, why are people who are to old to concieve allowed to marry and homosexuals aren't if marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival." "

Because society's customs apply to people as a CLASS without making distinctions among the individuals in that class. We sure as heck aren't going to examine a person's reproductive organs before we issue a marriage license. That would be an invasion of privacy. But heterosexual couples as a CLASS are indeed equipped by nature to procreate. "

Raven wrote on Nov 20, 2008 9:29 AM:

" we are not comparing them JR, we are saying that marriage a civil ,right that all enjoy....

one difference between domestic partnerships, we don't have civil unions here, is that if both partners are receiving benefits, using pre-tax income, the costs of the partner's benefits are considered taxable income...and that can be a considerable tax increase for the couple that heterosexual couples do not pay

and JR, Technology has eliminated that procreation barrier for lesbian couples so you think it is okay for them to marry? or is it applicable only to couple that need no help from modern health science?

and it is not petty to use the correct name for something, JR... "

out in napa wrote on Nov 20, 2008 9:42 AM:

" John Richards wrote "Just read what Romans 1:26-27 has to say. The word 'homosexuality' is not used, but it is very clear what type of sexual acts it forbids."
The bible is a story about Jesus, nothing more. The texts that are used to argue against homosexuality are nothing more than guidlines, rules if you want, that the churches of the time put forth for their congregations to follow. The ONLY rules in the bible are the ten commandments in the old testament and "love one another" in the new testament. At no time did Jesus, God, or the Holy Spirit speak against homosexuality. Not to mention the fact that homosexuality as it is known today was not even a thought or known when the bible was written so how could anybody write against something not yet known? "

Maven wrote on Nov 20, 2008 9:52 AM:

" John Richards –

Correct terminology is important. And, there are differences, although much less since the change in 2005. Some employers still don't provide domestic partner benefits on the level of spousal benefits. Dissolution and support payments are different. Hospital visitation outside of the state as well as custody outside of the state are different.

I suggest you reread what Barna is writing. 80% of Christians divorce AFTER becoming Christian and 25% of them have multiple divorces behind them. You seem to have missed that part.

That's SHAMEFUL behavior on the part of Christians.

If even 25% of Christians (far less than Barna claims) divorce, that's still SHAMEFUL. That means that 1 out of 4 Christians doesn't live up to the belief that marriage is for life. In reality, it appears to be at least 1 out of 3.

Don't you believe that this should be the highest priority for Christians? As you have pointed out, it's heterosexuals who are procreating, so their failed marriages are HARMING children.

Surely, we should do something to stop divorce and children being raised in broken homes. Yet….no legislation. Why do we seek to legislate the lives of others but not ourselves?

We haven't managed to solve the problem ourselves within our churches. Barna shows that Christians are NO BETTER at marriage than any other group. "

Maven wrote on Nov 20, 2008 9:54 AM:

" John Richards –

As for "examining a person's organs" – that's actually a possibility. If an androgynous appearing couple were to attempt to get a marriage license and were refused, the resulting lawsuit might very well require physical exams to determine gender prior to getting a marriage license. The elderly widow might have to have someone check her "organs" to ascertain that she's a woman.

By the way, don't assume that all couples in opposite sex marriages are "heterosexual." Recent news stories indicate that there are plenty of sham marriages and many of them are in the conservative Christian community.

Encouraging these types of marriages is yet another thing Christians have done to damage marriage. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:47 AM:

" Raven wrote: "if both partners are receiving benefits, using pre-tax income, the costs of the partner's benefits are considered taxable income...and that can be a considerable tax increase for the couple that heterosexual couples do not pay."
Are you talking about federal income tax rules or state income tax rules? If the latter, that would be a violation of California's Family Code. One lawsuit would easily take care of that. If federal, then it is immaterial because granting gays the right to marry in California does not change the federal law. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:59 AM:

" Raven wrote: "Technology has eliminated that procreation barrier for lesbian couples so you think it is okay for them to marry? or is it applicable only to couple that need no help from modern health science?"
I think the intent is the important distinction here.
It is one thing for a heterosexual couple to seek medical help to overcome a medical condition which is preventing natural conception. It is quite another thing for a lesbian couple to use artificial means to achieve conception when there is no medical condition, and when the intent is to bring a baby into a non-ideal family setting. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:17 AM:

" out in napa wrote: "The bible is a story about Jesus, nothing more."
Although that may be the overlying theme, it is a lot more than just that. 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." So all those aspects are important.

I agree that Jesus did not speak out against homosexuality, but there are a lot of other topics he didn't speak out on, such as pedophilia. The Jews at that time considered any sort of non-standard sex so abhorrent that it did not need special emphasis. Today's Muslims are still on that page, and I'm sure you know what they think about open homosexuality.

Are you trying to say there was no homosexuality in Greece or Rome at the time of Jesus? "

John Richards wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:21 AM:

" Maven wrote: "Hospital visitation outside of the state as well as custody outside of the state are different."

Excuse me, but how does Prop 8 change that in any way whatsoever? Prop 8 only applies to California. Do you know what a 'red herring' is in a debate? "

wonkagirl wrote on Nov 20, 2008 12:14 PM:

" SJSONGBIRD: you say leave you alone. How can we? When all gay people do is parade their rainbow flag around to let everyone know how proud they are to be gay. Give me a break!
They want civil rights? You already have them. No, you don't deserve the title of marriage. Marriage is a union of 1 man and 1 woman. Had God intended people to be gay, it would have been "Adam and Steve" not "Adam and Eve".

I'm a married woman, I love my husband and before him I dated men. If I had a sticker on my car that said, "I love D***" what would you think of me? When I go to a job interview, do you think I walk in and say,"Hi, my name is so&so and I love men", would I still get the job? What is it anyone's business who I love or what I do behind close doors. I'm not out there with a poster being proud of my choice of sex. Why do people think that everyone needs to know their sexual preference?

Prop.8 was already voted on TWICE. ACCEPT IT ALREADY!!! Stop wasting everyone elses time on wanting a re-vote. Because chances are, they will vote YES again. "

Raven wrote on Nov 20, 2008 1:20 PM:

" and what have you done to deserve the title of marriage beside being heterosexual wonkagirl? Who deserves equal rights and who doesn't?

how is there a difference JR...both are couples using the means available to them to have children, which meets that criteria often tossed out about marriage being for procreation?...or are you saying lesbian couples don't deserve the right to use that technology? And how do you know what is the ideal family situation..I know of many hetero couples that I shudder when I think of them having children...it is heart and soul of the person, not their sexual orientation, that makes them a good parent...

And btw, you are encouraging them to use lawsuits to correct that taxing differences?... "

out in napa wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:02 PM:

" Hey John, if we are about quoting scripture and enforcing what the good books says lets not be selective in our choices:

The Bible accepts sexual practices that we condemn and condemns sexual practices that we accept. Lots of them! Here are a few examples.

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

Since the bible does not speak against homosexuality but is quite clear about the above topics maybe the gay community should help the God fearing Christians see the error of their ways. "

hospitality24 wrote on Nov 21, 2008 4:06 AM:

" I pray for the day we as human beings accept each other for our differences and learn to embrace each other as brothers and sisters... "

TINAMAC wrote on Nov 21, 2008 7:36 AM:

" Since when do "EQUAL" rights equate to "SPECIAL" rights....

WHO WAS THE PATRIOT WHO FLEW THE RAINBOW OVER THE STARS AND STRIPES?

( you are kidding right? wow!)



why is it a hate crime if someone punches someone who is gay... but if they punch me it's just basic punching and not hate??????

The whole thing is exasperating!

(FYI- I VOTED NO ON PROP 8) "

TINAMAC wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:10 AM:

" (becoming disgusted that I voted NO on prop 8)

(Mccain voter also, who was called a racist, and belittled by quite a few folks for voicing this opinion.... !)



Since when do equal rights equate to SPECIAL rights?

Who was the patriot who flew the rainbow over OUR STARS AND STRIPES? You're kidding right? (WOW!)

If someone punches me it's just assault... if they punch a gay person it's a hate crime (stiffer punishment). How is it that it's not hate BOTH WAYS?

How is it ok for bible bashers to enter into a church and disrupt thru violent means a congregation of worshipers and their CHILDREN? YOU BETTER BELIEVE if there was evangelical church group raiding a gay church THIS would be PLASTERED across american media outlets!

I think it's bitter sweet to most of the far left and they thought they had this prop in the bag so to speak. I can understand frustration but there needs to be a level of restraint or they will lose support of those that arent affected either way by their plight. namely .... me.


EQUAL DOESN'T MEAN SPECIAL RIGHTS! "

Raven wrote on Nov 21, 2008 10:03 AM:

" feeling better tina after getting that off your chest?


the flag thing was not the best approach but nothing illegal about...just a bit on the stupid side

you want to give some specifics instead of just ranting?

and no one is asking for special rights...juts equal rights..how does being able to marry make it special rights?


and oh yeah..it is also a hate crime if it is based upon sex, race or ethnicity "

TINAMAC wrote on Nov 21, 2008 11:23 AM:

" Raven,

thanks for driving my point home... you need me to fish the needle out of the haystack that has become the "rants" mainstream media...

I shall oblige you ... but it's friday and I have important errands to run.... keep a watch I'll bring forth the goods.

Since you seem to be in the KNOW who exactly thought it was a good idea to put that rainbow over the stars and stripes... I think the community should know- how about that? When I give you the goods, you give me the goods on that name... thanks :) "

tinamac wrote on Nov 21, 2008 12:06 PM:

" (again: I VOTED NO ON PROP 8)

exhibit a:

Please type "prop 8 rally palm springs" on youtube in re to:

A woman holding a cross, had it knocked from her grasp and protesters stomped on the cross and pushed the elderly lady...... while this woman was being interviewed by a reporter she was attacked again for trying to answer questions about why she supported the prop and how she felt about being ATTACKED, and when interviewer and this lady tried to continue the interview the protesters made it impossible for this woman or her interviewer to be heard.... Doesn't this infringe on THEIR FREE SPEECH rights too? "

tinamac wrote on Nov 21, 2008 12:07 PM:

" exhibit B

article:

On Sunday, November 9, a band of about 30 gays stormed a church in Lansing, Michigan. Some were well dressed and were stationed inside Mount Hope Church; others were outside dressed in pink and black. The group of self-described homosexual anarchists, Bash Back!, claims the evangelical church is guilty of “transphobia and homophobia.
”

The protesters outside the church were beating on buckets, shouting “Jesus was a homo” on a megaphone and carrying an upside-down pink cross. Fire alarms went off inside the church, protesters stormed the pulpit and a huge rainbow-colored flag was unfurled with the inscription, “IT’S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!” The church was vandalized, obscenities were shouted and worshippers were confronted. There were no arrests. (of course)


Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this issue today:

“The real story here is the refusal of the mainstream media to cover what is surely one of the most disturbing events of 2008. If an organized group of gay bashers stormed a gay church, there is not a single sentient person in the United States who wouldn’t know about it.

PS: Why are these attacks or even the peaceful protests... not happening at Southern Baptist churches? answer: that would be POLITICALLY INCORRECT. "

tinamac wrote on Nov 21, 2008 12:09 PM:

" my question AGAIN,

Why is it considered a hate crime if someone punches a gay person... but (exhibit B) a group of people gathering in fellowship in the privacy of their church WITH THEIR CHILDREN can be bullied and confronted in a physically violent manner without ANY consideration for this being a HATE crime? How could the protesters (exhibit A) think it was ok to push around this elderly lady? The perps were obviously FILLED WITH HATE!

I urge anyone out there who is a part of a legal protest for gay/lesbian rights or who helps put these PEACEFUL gatherings together to keep your heads on and DON'T RUIN your chances at EQUALITY by trying to strong arm people who simply don't feel the same as you- and please remember two wrongs dont make a right!!!!!!!!!

Equal Rights.... is NOT SPECIAL RIGHTS! "

Raven wrote on Nov 21, 2008 3:05 PM:

" tina, here are the bias that can bring out a hate crime designation...crimes motivated by the victim’s race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, or physical or mental
disability ... if they just want to rob you or hit you, it ain't a hate crime, if they did it because you were a woman, it is....if you don't care for the hate crime legislation, hit up your legislator to get them to change it....

and I agree with you....violent protests do no one any good and people who do them should be arrested and prosecuted... "

jmo wrote on Nov 21, 2008 3:16 PM:

" I can't seem to get my posting approved so I want to thank Tinamac for entering the fray. Job well done!

Maybe my third attempt an even more watered version will pass muster.

All the no H8ers are trying to put up all these smoke screens (how are you hurt? and this about civil rights etc.), to chock us into submission. It will not work.

Do you know any heterosexuals who need that kind of sexual identity (the animal dominate thing mentioned)...not necessary is it?

In yesterdays Chronicle article was spot on with the ultimate direction the court will take. If for some reason the court doesn’t uphold prop. 8, I see a massive successful recall effort just as the people of California did when the court got it wrong on the death penalty issue.

I think this does belong in the courts to get a resolution. However, I bet the no folks (my way or no way people dictating to the majority) won't accept a favorable court ruling upholding prop. 8, if the ruling comes down that way. They will need to go the US Supreme Court and they will have to wait years to have a chance there with the current court make up and even new appointments won’t guarantee 8 will be overturned. "

srnitnw wrote on Nov 21, 2008 3:48 PM:

" tinmac,

on the flag issue - as it was explained by someone in a post on another thread, there was no premeditated plan to put the rainbow flag above our country's flag -- two poles were put together so that only one person had to carry them and the pole holding the rainbow just happened to be longer. Again, no offense was meant or intended.

hate crimes - hitting a gay person is not a hae crime in and of itself. It is classified as a hate crime if the person is hit BECAUSE they are gay.

exhibits - your cited incidentces are very disturbing, but we cannot judge an entire group of people by the acts af a few. That would put us right back into the world of japanes concentration camps. It's unfortunate that these people have set such a poor example, casting negativity on all people who are opposed to prop 8 as your complaint seems to infer. "

pharper wrote on Nov 21, 2008 3:49 PM:

" A hate crime is a crime committed on the basis of someone's sexuality or rac. If the gay person is punched because they are gay (and for no other reason) that is a hate crime. If you were punched simply because you are female (I assume) that too would be a hate crime. Simply punching someone who is gay does not constitute a hate crime, and nowhere in law does it that it does. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:05 PM:

" Raven wrote "you are encouraging them to use lawsuits to correct that taxing differences."

I would first need you to answer my question about whether you meant state or federal income tax rules, but you seem to be studiously avoiding that distinction. "

Raven wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:18 PM:

" jmo.....1) Dont count on the massive recall effort yet....I dont think your support will be any where near as strong as the anti-rose bird vote....

and no one is trying to chock(?) you into submission...but no one has yet explained how same sex couple being able to marry harms them?....can you explain how it does.....and yes, the courts have said marriage is an essential civil right, so not being able to marry is about civil rights...

and while waiting for the court decision to make its way thru the courts, i will wager you will see another measure on the 2010 ballot expressing stating a right to same sex marriage...so don't get too comfy "

John Richards wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:19 PM:

" tinamac wrote: "Please type "prop 8 rally palm springs" on youtube."

I just watched that clip. What a bunch of goons, pulling a cross out of the hands of a frail elderly lady and stomping on it. I makes me proud to be on the civilized side of this issue. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:36 PM:

" If you look at the history of all of the struggles for equal rights, you will find peaceful nonviolent leaders and those that advocate more aggressive tactics of civil disobedience. The Stonewall riots of 1969 are just one example where anger boiled over into aggressive behavior. The gay rights movement throughout the 1950's was very nonviolent, but in the late 60's it became more volatile and those incidents fair up anytime there is a setback in the movement forward. While I encourage the nonviolent approach as practiced by Dr. King and his predecessors, as long as there is oppression, it is reasonable to expect there will be those who advocate turning anger into action. I'm not saying it is ok or helps, just that it shouldn't be any surprise when you tell a minority group they are inferior and not deserving of the same treatment you give to yourself. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:43 PM:

" out in napa, you quoted a bunch of Bible verses, but if you were a Biblical scholar you would know that those laws have been superseded, just like parts of our Constitution have been superseded by later amendments.
Read Acts 15:19-29, and you'll see that Jesus' own apostles are in total agreement that the Jewish laws do not apply to non-Jewish Christians.
Your assertion that the Bible does not permit divorce is also wrong. It is permitted when one of the partners has been unfaithful (Matthew 19:9), and in the case of abandonment (1 Corinthians 7:15). "

jmo wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:43 PM:

" Raven the question is now and has always been "What is the definition of marriage" It has nothing to do with whether or not I or anyone one else is/has been or will be hurt. Read the prop. Let's stick to the issue "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:55 PM:

" Focusing on the bad behavior of some angry people is a distraction from the real issue which is about granting equal status and recognition under the law to gay people. When you deny them the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses, that causes emotional pain and suffering which results in anger. While that may not believe as some do that homosexuality is a natural sub population of humans, do you really have the right to impose your moral judgement on an entire segment of the population and inflict pain and suffering on them? You can still believe you are superior, but when you write it into law and force your beliefs on those who see the world a little differently, you cause emotional pain. "

Raven wrote on Nov 21, 2008 11:37 PM:

" yeah JR..but lets see, that if you are Jewish and don't think it has been superceded by anything in the new testament..and there are quite a few christian sects which do believe the old testament is just as valid as the new...and what about this lil gem...

"But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets; Acts 24:14...and this...Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17

sounds like Jesus himself is saying to follow the old testament and not giving you the option to pick and choose

and jmo....the issue is not the definition of marriage...that has been and will be ever changing...look at your history books if you doubt that...

the question is do you have the right to strip away a basic civil right from a group of people....that is what Prop 8 did....once the justices affirmed that same sex couples have a right to marry....it may not have been the intent when the prop was written but i think since it was written and the signatures collected before the justices issued their decision, the writers had an inkling of what the ruling might be, hence the decision to seek an amendment rather that a statute like Prop 22 "

John Richards wrote on Nov 22, 2008 12:16 PM:

" Raven wrote: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17"

Yes, Jesus came to fulfill the old Jewish laws, and fulfill he did. Note that fulfillment in this case means payment of a debt, or a closing of the books. On the cross He said, "It is finished", and at that moment the veil in the Temple tore in half. I signified the end of the OT 'dispensation' as theologians call it.
Yes, there are so-called Christian sects who believe that all the OT requirements are still in effect, but the overwhelming majority of Christian theologians find that view to be in contradiction of NT teachings. It would be equivalent to ignoring all the Amendments to our Constitution. "

pharper wrote on Nov 22, 2008 3:28 PM:

" It must be very convenient to be able to interpret one part of the Bible one way, and another part a different way, JR.

For example, the word "abomination" meant "against the social and cultural norm" in the time and language in which the New Testament was written. After all, most Christians still eat shellfish and wear two different types of cloth at the same time, despite the fact that the Bible calls those things "abominations" as well.

Believing in the Bible must be nice--one can twist it any way one wants so that one can justify what s/he does to his/her fellow mankind. "

Raven wrote on Nov 22, 2008 4:09 PM:

" hmm...looked and cant find any reference there about debt....and cannot find any historical record outside the Bible about the veil of the temple being torn....but if all Christians cannot agree on what it means and what parts they must follow...then you can see the problems in using the Bible as a cornerstone to impose your beliefs on anyone, much less non-Christians...

It would be not be the same as ignoring the amendments because the Bible does not have the force of law...nor does it have a single source, the supreme court in the case of the federal constitution and the each state's supreme court in the case of the state constitutions, that all must adhere to, to interpret it. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 22, 2008 5:50 PM:

" jharper wrote: "It must be very convenient to be able to interpret one part of the Bible one way, and another part a different way, JR."

I don't understand what you are getting at. I believe I'm being very consistent and rational. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 22, 2008 5:55 PM:

" Raven wrote: "if all Christians cannot agree on what it means and what parts they must follow...then you can see the problems in using the Bible as a cornerstone."
There is a central mass of Christendom that agrees on all the basic tenets. Then there are a bunch of sects that have weird interpretations. But the membership of the central core far outnumbers the membership of the sects. We know who is who. :-) "

Raven wrote on Nov 22, 2008 7:59 PM:

" glad you do, JR and I am sure those in the sects you so blithely dismiss are saying the same about you....but until you can all agree on who is ..'right'... save the imposition of your biblical values on others who believe as you do....sounds a lot like both sides in a war saying God is with us...can they both be right? "

jmo wrote on Nov 22, 2008 10:49 PM:

" and jmo....the issue is not the definition of marriage...that has been and will be ever changing...look at your history books if you doubt that...
Excuse me!! The smoke screen again!!!
WOW!! I love it Raven.
WOW was the definition ever other than a man and woman? Exactly what was is then? And, if so when? And if so, why was it changed back to a Man and a woman? DA!!!!

Gosh I am glad tomorrow is nearly here and we can take a break and watch some NFL> "

Raven wrote on Nov 23, 2008 1:16 AM:

" jmo ... it is the yes on 8 folks like yourself that have made this about a definition...for the rest of us it has been and is about a right stripped away from our friends and neighbors...simple as that... "

XMAN wrote on Nov 23, 2008 5:00 AM:

" Generally, I'm in favor of capitol punishment. Generally, I'm against abortion. Generally, I'm against same sex marriage as a civil right. May sound a bit conservative to most but I'll fit right in when the Great Depression hits next year. Liberalism generally becomes somewhat unpopular during bad economic times since liberalism is generally what causes bad economic times. Gasoline is now $2.17 a gallon down the street. What does that mean? "

ruiz94558 wrote on Nov 23, 2008 3:10 PM:

" Well I hope this rally helped and I'm sorry I couldn't be there to support my friends. I really hope it goes well and gets overturned. As for those opposing this, too bad you have to be so discriminating. Just like equal rights are for everyone, so is marriage. If it doesn't pertain to you than what harm is it doing to you??? Let everyone else be happy! Did anyone strip you from your rights? Your right to marry?...regardless of who. If it doesn't involve you, let everyone be happy with what they want. Why stop them? Too bad you have to be so close minded. Good luck on Prop 8!!! You go people!!! NO ON 8!!! "

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