Proposition 8 backers listed on 'Wall of shame'

Home » News » Local

Local gay rights activists take marriage fight to the Web

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Comment

By JILLIAN JONES
Register Staff Writer

Prop H8 Wall Of Shame site

Database of all Yes and No on 8 contributors in entire U.S.

Jillian Jones articles

November 21st, 2009

County sued over housing

November 19th, 2009

More time to study Napa Pipe

November 18th, 2009

Despite state criticism, officials back housing proposal

November 15th, 2009

Marketing reflects changing demand of Napa Valley wine

More wine stays unsold during economic slump

Is your name on the Wall of Shame?

Dozens of local residents are being chastised on a controversial new Web site called the “Prop 8 H8 Wall of Shame.”

The site, launched in November by local gay rights activist Chris Edwards, lists every Napa County resident and business that reportedly donated to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in California, was narrowly approved by voters in November.

Edwards, who has been with his partner for 10 years, said he and everyone else deserve to know who in their county helped eliminate his right to marry.

“We should know who our neighbors and who the business are who are trying to defeat and take away our rights,” Edwards said.

About 75 people are listed on the site, most of whom are residents who contributed $100 or less. Top contributions include $1,000 from Syar Industries; $1,100 from Mona Dodd of Calistoga; $1,000 from Joleen Hughes of Calistoga; and $1,000 each from Napa residents Christine Frye, David Brown, Stewart Walkenhorst and Danny Walkenhorst.

Information on the site comes from the Associated Press, Edwards said.

None of the donors contacted by the Register were available for comment.

Edwards asks residents to consider who donated to Proposition 8 when deciding where to spend their money.

“I’m not blatantly asking for a boycott of those businesses,” he said, “but suggesting we should spend our money wisely with those who are advocates … not those who are contributing to the defeat of rights.”

Janet Kirtlink, chairwoman of the Napa County Republican Party, said she worries that Edwards’ Web site could perpetuate an already emotional fight.

“I think all it does is create more animosity among people,” she said. “I just don’t think it’s helpful to anyone to ever say anyone ever hates people.”

Then again, Kirtlink acknowledges that donors to any political cause may be called upon to stand behind their contributions.

“If you’re going to put yourself out there and you’re going to donate, then this can come up,” she said. Kirtlink said she only hopes that businesses listed on the Web site don’t suffer as a result of their donations.

Carol Whichard, president of the Democrats of Napa Valley, said those who contribute to campaigns should be willing to defend those donations.

“People who donate money to a cause have to stand by the power of their convictions,” said Whichard, who is featured on the Web site in a video that shows her applying for a same-sex marriage license.

“If somebody is angered by their name being posted on a Web site, whether it’s being called the Wall of Shame or whatever,” Whichard added, “those people can’t say ‘no,’ ... because those people are then not standing by the power of their convictions.

“Yes on 8 people are more than welcome to post their own Wall of Shame,” she said.

Edwards said he received one message insisting that the site be taken down.

“One anonymous message said that I had no right to list them, but it’s public information,” he said.

Edwards said the goal of the Web site, which also features videos and news updates, is to “put a face to the Napa community.”

“So many times people see the news story but don’t necessarily see the faces or understand how it impacts them locally,” Edwards said. His Web site, he explained, says, “This is local faces. This is your local neighbors.”

The site can be found at www.h8wallofshame.com

343 comment(s)

verum wrote on Dec 4, 2008 1:01 AM:

" Merely a tempest in a teapot. "

informed wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:42 AM:

" My only regret is not giving money to get on the wall. Is it too late? "

kevin wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:50 AM:

" I'm waiting for the NVR to publish the names of businesses and people that supported homosexual marriage....

....still waiting. "

gatekeeper wrote on Dec 4, 2008 5:30 AM:

" And Yes on 8ers are called the h8ers? Their idea is to get their gay buddies to shove that being gay is fine down their throats, maye even threatening people who voted Yes! "

savenapa wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:01 AM:

" My admiration and respect is extended to all of those individuals who supported prop 8. Thank you for voting with your pocketbook and helping to insulate my children from moral filth. In return I will support your businesses as I am able. "

fmmt47 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:13 AM:

" The people who donated to the campaign have the right to do so and also excercise their right to vote as they wish without being harrassed by the gay movement who uses the same tactics as the Nazis. Whats next, smash the windows of their businessess, drag them into the street, beat them up, then load them on to cattle cars and ship them to concentration camps? Oh, I forgot, they are already harrassing people statewide that donated to the campaign, breaking windows out of churches and businesses and assaulting them, and beating them up. All thats left for the gays to do now is get legislation passed to imprison the donors for "hate crimes" You people are creepy! "

noblindershere wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:33 AM:

" If you don't want people knowing what you support, don't do it...its public information. Thanks for doing this. David Brown- our former Superintendent of Schools! "

Dirty Napkin wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:34 AM:

" Ok, any MD on the list, I think should never support this kind of thing, Yes they too have an opinon, but the fact is they should keep it to themselves. I for one would be offended that my Dr. did not support (people in general) and if you are gay and you go in and he is not polite because he know's, and is unsupportive in your life choices, he should be banned from practicing medicine. One Dr is on the list numerous times. Shame on him! "

noblindershere wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:37 AM:

" oh and our local mormon community members were heavily present on the list as well. "

Maya wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:56 AM:

" "asks residents to consider who donated to Proposition 8 when deciding where to spend their money."
OK sure. Now I have a shopping list of where I should go (not boycott) to show my support. I'd like to see a list of supporters of No on 8 so I can know where to boycott. "

bob2 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 7:02 AM:

" Once again , the proponets of tolerance and diversity demonstrate their own hatred and hypocrisy towards those who dare disagree with them. I'm sure they'd love to have them same action directed towards them. And what business are you engaged in, Mr. Edwards? "

whoa cowboy wrote on Dec 4, 2008 7:04 AM:

" This is a bully tactic that the NVR shouldn't be perpetuating. These so called "open minded, liberal thinkers" are bullying people across the nation by publishing their addresses and phone numbers along with their contribution amounts to harrass people that don't agree with them. You shouldn't have to defend your contributions, it's your personal business, not theirs. Mind your own business and leave private parties alone! Your retaliaton tactics are deplorable. "

truthteller wrote on Dec 4, 2008 7:19 AM:

" Right on!!!!! "

Napa Mom wrote on Dec 4, 2008 7:32 AM:

" ok, I voted against this Proposition and can't wait until the time comes when it is done away with. This seperate but equal concept didn't fly before, and it doesn't fly now. However, this is not right, public information or not. What if the proponents of Prop 8 published a website listing all the gay supporters? I think they would be required to take it down right away. This does not help build bridges to get to the right place, it only hardens the divide. What did my mother always tell me - oh yes, two wrongs don't make a right. "

winemd wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:10 AM:

" I personally think it would be better to post a website featuring those who supported your cause. "

jwk wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:13 AM:

" There's no SHAME for Standing up for what's right. This is NOT an anything goes World. There is a right and wrong. It is all too apparent though that these same people voted for the Messiahs BS as well. Maybe we on the right side should put up our own Wall of Shame for those trying to destroy the constitution and Society with their Liberal Mantra.. But on Second thought, If Men marry Men and Women marry Women and They keep supporting and doing abortions, There will be NO Democratic Party in three or four generations!! And That will be Good for Our Country. SO keep on pushing to have the will of the people overturned by Radical Leftist Judges. Maybe I've changed my mind after all!!!! "

winejumper wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:17 AM:

" People with an agenda who try to force people to believe as they do by scaring them are called “TERRORIST”. We saw it in Mumbai, Iran, Iraq and now in Napa. Shame on you, Chris Edwards, for trying to intimidate, scare or embarrass our local business people for not believing as you do.
If your cause is just people will support it. "

coigue wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:41 AM:

" winejumper,

If it's a cause you believe in, who cares if your name is made public? All financing is public, so Chris just took the public info and put it on his website where it was more easily accessible. "

Raven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:47 AM:

" might I point out that the yes on 8 people sent letters to businesses and donors during the campaign, threatening to out them as supporters of same sex marriage...

and how is the NVR perpetuating anything....they are merely reporting on something that...to judge from the posts here and on other threads is a quite some interest to the community..

and lest we forget....all these names are public record....alll he has done is put them in one place for easy access.....

by all means, yes on 8 supporters...list those who did contribute to the no on 8 campaign if you feel the need ...

and if there is no shame involved...why the big hubbub..I should think you would be proud of stripping away rights from your neighbors "

homo_sapien wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:48 AM:

" Can you tell us the businesses that these people are affiliated with, so that we know where not to spend our money? "

napawiner wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:51 AM:

" Boycott Chris Edwards and what ever company he works for or is associated with.

Listing those who supported no on 8 is equally fair. Where do we find this public information? "

Napagrrl wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:52 AM:

" You know, one of these days those of you with young kids who are trying to shield them from "moral filth" are going to find out that among them are gay people. This will be in spite of everything you did so they wouldn't make that "choice." That, of course, depends on whether your child dares tell you.

As for a website for those who feel everyone has the right to marry whomever they want, sign me up. "

jrh182 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:58 AM:

" Having your name on the wall of shame is like having a badge of honor. Stand up a be counted for your convictions. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:59 AM:

" fm. Maybe you are not aware the Nazi's did exactly what you describe to gay people. They started off by changing the law to take away rights, then rounding them up and sending them off to the camps. In this case, prop 8 took away a right, while if it had lost, no one would have lost any right. People are going to be angry when their rights are taken away, and many will fight back however they can. Gay people have grown up with the threat of rejection by their parents, friends, churches and institutions, so this is only one issue in a lifetime of struggling for equality for gay people. "

Native74 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:00 AM:

" Wow. Who's being disciminated here again?

Talk about burning bridges for those who may have supported you in the past, but don't like the public bashing displays of hatred towards others. Not the way to go. "

grape wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:08 AM:

" I look forward to the list so that I can go spend my money at the businesses who contributed to the support of Prop. 8. "

bmxdad wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:11 AM:

" My wife and I both voted against prop 8, but I'm appalled at Mr. Edwards tactics. Mr. Edwards(and others of like mind), please refrain from such negative actions as this will only hurt your cause on future initiatives. I'm personally disappointed that 8 passed, but am ecstatic that I had the right to vote on it! "

Rich wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:12 AM:

" LOL, they left me off the list so I dropped him an email with my info. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:14 AM:

" winejumper. The prejudice we were taught as children is hard to overcome, so even though the cause of equality is just, convincing people to overcome their prejudice, especially when it continues to be reinforced by some churches (though not others) makes it a difficult challenge. While taking away a right from a minority group does not threaten your position in society, singling out gay people for removal of rights is very threatening to them, as it affects their daily lives, and is a reminder of a lifetime and history of being singled out for discrimination and abuse. And while the hate toward gay people is not as apparent on some of the posts as it is on the one by savenapa, it still comes through loud and clear. "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:16 AM:

" These people are terrorists....

How long before a home is burned down with a "Yes On 8" sign in the yard...

This infantile and outrageous behavior is just another reason to shut down their quest got gay marriage...

Poor little baby's are throwing a tantrum, and employing bullying tactics... Enough is enough... It will backfire... "

Common Sense wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:17 AM:

" Amazing how the gay marriage crowd continues to harass and intimidate people with different opinions. Free speech is tolerated as long as you agree with them.

Holy Bias, Batman. Talk about only presenting one side of the story. The Register had better get some balance and post the list of people and business who supported gay marriage. "

BKF wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:18 AM:

" Are people actually still so ignorant as to believe homosexuality is a choice? Do some brain development research, people. When a young boy is in the womb, he is injected with a shot of testosterone 6-8 weeks after conception. If the testosterone levels are too low for whatever reason (mother's health habits mainly), he will almost certainly grow up to be gay or AT LEAST extremely feminine and be perceived as gay...

Homosexuality has nothing to do with morals. Those of you who think its a morality issue are ignorant of crucial scientific facts. Feel free to attempt to argue this. By the way, I'm heterosexual and have no biases on this subject. I just call it like it is. "

marine1/1 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:26 AM:

" I donated to YES on 8 and would do so again in a heart beat. This is an awesome example of people that don't get it. Twice you lost in an election and you still continue to cry like babies. Talking to alot of my customers lately, more people who did not last time would now vote YES on 8. These sore LOOSERS are turning alot of their on the line supporters against themselves. Let's get the courts involved and throw Obama out of office because some of us didn't vote for him. Let's teach young people that voting means nothing and why even bother if sore LOOSERS just try and run to a few liberal judges to get their way? YES on 8 all the way !!!!!!!!!!!!! "

commenter wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:33 AM:

" Public information is just that. Mr. Edwards has a right to post whatever he wants, just as people have the right to ignore him.

My question for Mr. Edwards is "are you is one sided in your site?" If willing to post the backers of Prop 8, list the opponents as well, or a list of those married recently, or a list of same gender marriages.

Hate mongering is simply wrong.

What he has done is no different than those who put the little fish symbol on their business door, business cards, etc. - saying shop here because of my beliefs... "

bimgroup wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:34 AM:

" Hey Edwards,

I donated to the Yes on 8 and I don't see my name on your wall!! Please add it when you get time. I'm proud to be a strong supporter of moral values that you have so often confused with civil rights.

Mike Butler "

punkymane wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:34 AM:

" I want to be on the WALL..... "

jmo wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:41 AM:

" WOW does this remind you of Germany back in the 30's
Come on Mr. Edwards what line of work are you in so we can boycott your business or your employers' business for employing such a h8er. Of course we'll never know as it is not anyone's business is it? "

hawkins707 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:44 AM:

" Great work to the Anti-8 folks...I now know who to thank with MY business. Terrific idea putting up the website. Thanks to all those who supported the campaign in these uneasy times. "

semperfi wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:49 AM:

" Thankyou for providing this invaluable list. I will be giving these businesses my business from now on! "

Two Cents wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:57 AM:

" Good.. Im thankful for this list...
I voted in support of 8 and now I will know which businesses to give my support to.
I agree with a previous poster... I want to give my business and patronage to those who helped preserve moral values in our schools.
I want to see a list of people who voted No on 8 so I can boycott their businesses.
I dont think its fair to publish one list without including the other.
Can someone please come up with a Wall of Shame for the No on 8ers.. "

Sickothis wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:58 AM:

" Heh. That's awesome. "

GregN. wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:59 AM:

" Hey protestors. Can you check to see if my name is up there. If not, could you please put it up for me?

KTHXBYE! "

manxkat wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:00 AM:

" This works both ways. Supporters of 8 can find people and businesses to give support to by using this list. "

winghunter wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:03 AM:

" Too bad I did not know about this earlier... during the election I really did not have strong feelings either way on this matter, now, I am as pro yes as I can be. Stop trying to shove things in my face at every turn, people are sick of it!!! "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:04 AM:

" This only goes to illustrate what pathetic sore losers the anti-8 folks are.
When I was a kid, we were taught that after a contest you would go up to your opponent, shake their hand and congratulate them on their gamemanship. *That* is civilized, gentleman-like behavior, which apparently is a lesson the anti-8 children never learned.
If you don't like the Prop 8 outcome, fine, vow to work harder and better the next time around. Stoking up the fires of animosity is counterproductive. "

overthehill wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:06 AM:

" Vengeance was not only supported by this writer, but placed on the front page above the fold. Is this supported by the editor also, shame on you for naming citizens who have a constitutional right to donate on a ballot measure.
They speak to the Democratic and Republican mouthpieces as if they are important in this issue. And finally, they list the website of this angry man.
Good grief, what city are we living in, why not put their addresses in the paper, their childrens names, their place of employment.
The Register owes each named person an apology and the writer a large black mark for their journalism. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:12 AM:

" You wrote: "What he has done is no different than those who put the little fish symbol on their business door, business cards, etc. - saying shop here because of my beliefs... "
If you don't see the difference, then your discernment is sadly lacking. Posting a fish symbol on one's business door is self-identification.
Publicly posting a list of people you consider to be hateful bigots is quite another matter. "

Paddy wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:13 AM:

" Is it any wonder we've voted yes on 8? This mentaility, this attitude, is despicable. I'm going to the list so I know who to bring ALL my business to. In their twisted way Chris Edwards has provided me with a new directory to help narrow my search of who gets my money.

Edwards, what business are you in? Please name it so I can spread the word about your back-biting, condescending, nazi practices. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:17 AM:

" A database with all contributors to either Yes or No on 8 from everywhere in the U.S. is available at sfgate.com. I don't have the resources available to build this extensive of a database, so here's how you can find it (Yes, I am violating my own comment guidelines about posting websites, but here goes)
http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?Search+Again= "

kkjp wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:18 AM:

" So far on this blog, people who are claiming Edwards is mean-spirited by posting this already public information, are themselves likening those who opposed Prop 8 to Nazis, vandals, moral filth, bullies, constitution destroyers and terrorists. And chances are, they don't see the hypocricy in their words. Hate mongering is still hate mongering regardless of what side of an issue you're on, or how righteous you believe your cause to be. "

Two Cents wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:18 AM:

" What is with the comments next to articles? It currently says 46 comments, yet there are the same 18 from this morning... It seems this is never accurate "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:26 AM:

" I call upon the Register to give equal prominence to publishing a list of the local anti-8 campaign donors. Fair is fair. "

GrapetownBankerBoi707 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:29 AM:

" i don't see much wrong with this. if the other side wants to post a wall of shame online, then they have every right and freedom to do so. the article even states that. in terms of a boycott, he's really not even calling for one. he is simply saying if you have store A and store B that you can get the same products at, but store A supports an illegal proposition that discriminates against gays, then please shop at store B instead. that is not blatent boycott. it's simply choosing one store over another with consideration of their support for a cause.

winejumper- please do not exaggerrate like that. these are not terrorists. to call them as such is simply inciting the same anger and hate that you claim so strongly that they are trying to force against the people on the list.

if people feel strongly enough about a cause to throw money into it, then they should feel strongly enough about it to stand behind their money. otherwise don't donate. "

RichardS wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:37 AM:

" First of all! It does not matter how I voted on prop 8, but what does matter is that it was on the ballet and people voted!

Now my question is why is their a problem with the decision?

Even though people are not happy about the outcome they should be happy that it was put on the ballet and voted on. You don't see McCain out complaining about the outcome of the presidential race! This whole prop 8 thing is going to be going to the courts, and is basically going to become a mockery of the voting process and is going to cause people to stop voting again!

We need to start focusing on our own personal, state , and countries financial futures before we go into a depression. And stop worring about financial things that others have spent their money on.

What is the next thing we will see happen with the prop 8 stuff? Are they going to purchase Copia and make it a museum of hate against the supporters? Or will they make it a museum of tolerance?

Maybe some day both sides will figure out better ways to spend their time and money. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:38 AM:

" I know for a fact that the list of contributors is incomplete. I am bummed because my name is not on that list. I donated $50 through the ProtectMarriage website. I demand my rightful place on the wall! "

amelia wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:40 AM:

" This is insane. I personally have gay friends and they never ever shoved their beliefs down my throat like this person. That makes me respect them more because they did not do that. This guy, acting like a spoiled 2 year old is not going to get what he wants. I may not have voted on the bill because while I am a believer in gay partnerships, I do not believe in gay marriages and so that conflict allowed me to have the freedom to not vote and to let others decide. I am ok with whatever way it went, but apparently those who were not still cannot accept the fact that they failed and will do nothing short of urban terrorism and fear tactics to bully others. Shame on you. "

itsmylife wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:42 AM:

" equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:59 AM:

" fm. Maybe you are not aware the Nazi's did exactly what you describe to gay people. They started off by changing the law to take away rights, then rounding them up and sending them off to the camps. In this case, prop 8 took away a right, while if it had lost, no one would have lost any right.

did you ever think that it is not a right and this is twice it has been voted down, I gladly voted it down twice and would gladly do so again. I only wish I had been able to donate money so that my name could go on the list. "

itsmylife wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:49 AM:

" equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:59 AM:

" fm. Maybe you are not aware the Nazi's did exactly what you describe to gay people. They started off by changing the law to take away rights, then rounding them up and sending them off to the camps. In this case, prop 8 took away a right, while if it had lost, no one would have lost any right.

Did you ever think that it is not a right, has nothing to do with civil rights at all and this is twice it has been voted down, I gladly voted it down twice and would gladly do so again. I only wish I had been able to donate money so that my name could go on the list. "

Napagranny wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:51 AM:

" This is wholly counter-productive and juvenile in its intent. I am very disappointed that the Napa Valley Register gave this divisive effort of disclosing the names of individuals and companies who supported Prop. 8 front page coverage and publishing those names as the "Wall of Shame". People can legitimately disagree with one another on important issues without treating one another with disrespect, contempt and ridicule. There is nothing shameful in supporting traditional marriage and not believing that this issue rises to the level of a civil right. If you believe otherwise and can garner worthwhile, intelliegent arguments rather than sound bites and rants, then begin a campaign to educate your opponents in aproductive, positive fashion. Now the merits of a discussion of the pros and cons of Prop. 8 are lost in a sea of adolescent ranting, whining and negativity. "

kkjp wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:51 AM:

" RichardS: BALLOT is the piece of paper you vote on. BALLET is a dance you do with toe shoes on. Spelling matters. "

wpr wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:54 AM:

" Although I agree with transparency in political contributions, I do not agree with the way Mr. Edwards has seen fit to handle this. If you want to list these people Mr. Edwards, do so in a courteous and respectful way. Instead you decided to demean and denigrate them. Instead of taking the high road and acting like an adult, you took the low road and acted like a child. All you are doing is inflaming and already inflammatory situation. Way to go Mr. Edwards.

Now for those who would like to see who donated money to oppose Prop 8, to find out their names, how much they donated and who their employers are, please cut and paste this link to your web browser.

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/Detail.aspx?id=1302602&session=2007

This link will take you to the California Secretary of State Campaign Finance page. I doubt any newspaper, here on the left coast, will ever publish a list of the opponents of Prop 8 who donated money. So, please check it out.

I voted for Prop 8, but I did not donate any money. Now I wish I had. If Prop 8 does get overturned by our State Supreme Court, and a new proposition ends up on the ballot in the next election, and I’m sure it will, the supporters can count on my support again, and this time, with a monetary donation too.

P.S. – These lists are quite large, so make sure your computer is up to the task and that you have plenty of time to sift through all the names. "

hoozcryinow wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:04 AM:

" To Kevin:
My name is Donna Tritchler and while I did not make a monetary contribution, I voted AGAINST Prop. 8. In the event anyone gets around to making that list you want of people who DON'T want the government to discriminate, I want my name on there, OK? P.S. I'm a married female, with kids and grandkids. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:07 AM:

" The joke is on those who put up the wall . . . how dumb can they be? It's almost as bad as Newsom's crowing about "whether you like it or not!". Someone ought to let them know that the in-your-face tactics seem to gain ground at first by firing up the sympathizers, but ultimately wind up firing up the opposition too. "

jmo wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:17 AM:

" Mr. Edwards how about coming out of the closet and tell us what your business is or where you work so we decide to support or boycott. I think you need to disclose more to inquiring minds. "

a teacher wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:36 AM:

" I support same sex marriage. I voted NO! on prop h8.

However. I am apalled by the politcal tone deafness displayed by the opponents to prop 8. First you have Gavin Newsome's smug "We're comming whether you like it or not!" being plastered all over the air waves. Then there is the field trip to the gay marriage incident. Now we have the Website of Shame.

Judging from the reaction of some of the posters here, they are not particularly ashamed of being on it. If it is an attempt to make contributers pay by boycotting their businesses, I would urge you to reconsider. It's heavy handed, bad politics. I am reminded of the website that posted the names of Abortion doctors, which is also public knowledge. How would we feel about a website that outed people who are gay?

In this country people have a right to their opinion and a right to support things that they agree with. I wouldn't boycott someone who contributed to Yes on 8. It's their business and their right to do so.

The gay community needs leadership. You guys are shooting yourselves in the foot and that is not getting you any closer to equality. "

WHY wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:37 AM:

" This is just crazy as to just how far the gay activists will go.

Keep it up as you are only angering the supporters of 8 and they are going to make the fight even harder for you No on 8 voters.

My mother always told me that you get more bees with honey. Maybe the gay activists should learn to be gracious losers and win this in a nice way instead of trying to ram it down everyones throat as to not create so much animosity

Now there's a thought!!! "

reason-ator wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:37 AM:

" Is it going to be called " The WAaahhhh Wall " ? "

antipc wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:45 AM:

" So much for the no agenda argument.

Keep up the good work Chris, you're doing your cause a great disservice. "

KK wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:52 AM:

" I knew Napa was fairly conservative. But I did not realize the level of hate involved. I'm astounded that people are proud of their hatred.

I am not comfortable seeing two men or two women romantically together. However I wouldn't dream of denying them a basic right because of my discomfort.

So much hate in such a beautiful area.
Prop 8 supporters voted for HATE. "

fzj80 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:53 AM:

" This is awesome! Thanks Chris for making this list readily available to us. I will be supporting these businesses and individuals as much as possible! Hopefully these kinds of tactics will backfire miserably on the perpetrators. I only wish that I had contributed so that my name could show up on the "Wall of Shame"! "

napanativegirl wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:02 PM:

" BOYCOTT 1-800-FLOWERS.***Chris Edwards*** made up this wall of shame. PS I will be suppoting those businesses. We call it the Wall of Pride. "

Raven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:04 PM:

" so it is okay to threaten businesses before the election to support the yes on 8 campaign ... but it isn't to simply list the contributors to that campaign?... can you spell hypocrisy? I love the claims of intolerance from people who voted to strip away a basic civil right from their neighbors, are you worried that a neighbor or neighbors who you may or may not know is gay will see you worked to take away their rights?

might I suggest if you aren't ready to have your name as part of the public record , then don't donate ... quite simple...no one's rights are being infringed upon by this web site, just their ability to hide what they have done. "

commenter wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:21 PM:

" John Richards - you bet there is no difference between the fish symbol and the Prop 8 list. Both are saying "Look at me. Just because of this fact (fish or list), do something. Never mind any other aspect of my life, this fish/list means you have to act and is all you need to know about me.)

Nothing wrong with being for or against something, fish person or not. The problem is using it to decide good/bad/shop/no-shop, etc.

Is a Prop 8 supporter a better business person just because they supported Prop 8? What if they have some other issue which is offensive?

I believe we are who we are - our actions tell more than a fish symbol or a list and I am not using either item to make my personal opinion of a person/business. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:24 PM:

" RichardS, marine, and others. The problem is that for the first time in US history, a simple majority used the law to take away equality from a minority.
Direct democracy was never the intent of the founding fathers. That is why they set up a representative democracy, complete with separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. History taught them this was necessary to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Equal rights for a minority should never be subject to a popular vote." "

Maven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:24 PM:

" Your vote is anonymous, but we legally are notified when signing petitions or donating to political causes that our names will be public record.

Go to the SF Examiner and you can get a complete list of people who donated on BOTH sides of this issue. I found it helpful in my own decision making process.

You can also get information on who signed the petition to put Proposition 8 on the ballot from the state.

If there are "Yes on 8" people who will now frequent these businesses (as many posters here claim they will do), who has been hurt? It's publicly available information, not some horrible "Nazi" tactic. Other sites provide a lot more detail, including employers. Google for them, if you are interested. There are also websites that list "gay friendly" businesses. If you are anti-gay, you could avoid them, I'm sure.

I do think that if I were a gay person, I would be concerned if I recognized the name of a medical professional I was seeing, because it's possible that someone who views gay people or relationships as "filth" (a word used by at least one "Yes on 8" person here) might not provide the best care.

There is the name of a local teacher on the list. Would a gay parent want his or her child in a class with a teacher who might view the family in this way?

People have a right to informed decision making, and this simply provides additional information.

As for me, I recognize a number of the names as people who work at businesses my family frequents. We have some hard decisions to make now. "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:25 PM:

" BKF wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:18 AM:
" Are people actually still so ignorant as to believe homosexuality is a choice? Do some brain development research, people. When a young boy is in the womb, he is injected with a shot of testosterone 6-8 weeks after conception. If the testosterone levels are too low for whatever reason (mother's health habits mainly), he will almost certainly grow up to be gay or AT LEAST extremely feminine and be perceived as gay...

Homosexuality has nothing to do with morals. ..."

Okay, I'm open minded... Instead of arguing that homosexuality is not a choice, your argument is that those people are defective... In that case they should be considered for special treatment under the Americans With Disabilities Act...

You can't have it both ways..... "

Maven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:25 PM:

" I suppose any of you who want to be added might be able to contact Chris Edwards at the site with evidence of your donation and see if he'll add your name.

He might add your name if you didn't make a donation but wish to publicize that you are anti-gay in the hope it impacts whether people do business with you. "

marktallis wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:29 PM:

" Paddy, you wanted to know what business Chris Edwards was in? 1800flowers, So that's a big one to not use this Christmas! "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:32 PM:

" wpr:
Just click the related link we posted to search all Prop 8 donors, both Yes and No, for the entire US. "

kfc wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:38 PM:

" Rights are not what gays are after. They are after complete acceptance of their lifestyle. I get tired of this red haring of "civil rights". Blacks, who know a thing or two about civil rights, voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8. Do you see gays invading their churches? Will you see them on the "Wall of Shame". I doubt it. The following are the list of legal rights civil unions already enjoy. I approve of legal rights for gay couples but not of calling it "marriage".

BENEFITS:

-- Access to information about family members' medical care, to hospital rooms, and authority to act in matters affecting family members. Gay couples should -- like heterosexual couples -- prepare and sign durable power of attorney for health care documents to avoid problems with federal privacy laws, particularly out of state.

- Access to proceedings and information when a spouse dies -- whether in an accident or as a crime victim.

-- Legal standing to make funeral arrangements.

-- Right to be placed in same room in a nursing home.

-- Coverage under state-regulated family health plans. Includes access to state-regulated coverage similar to COBRA when laid off.

-- State pension benefits if vested in the New Hampshire Retirement System.

-- Inheritance without a will.

-- Ability to transfer property to each other without paying state taxes.

-- Ability to change names after the union by showing civil union certificate to government agencies, banks and others and simply stating a name preference. (Chosen name should be used on all identification and legal documents.)

-- Pay or receive alimony and/or child support ordered by a court in a divorce.

- Ability to adopt "

4familiy wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:39 PM:

" I can't ever understand what life is like to be gay as I am not...what I can understand is family. Being a wife and mother I don't understand why people would want to prevent families from being responsible. You may not understand homosexuality, but wouldn't you prefer the responsible committed version? Many of these families have survived longer then many "traditional" marriages. Many kids of these families are strong, happy and healthy.

The key issue seems to me that families with members that are gay are in a position where a financial, health or custody issue comes up and the lack of the marriage certificate prevents the family from being able to take steps necessary to support that family. In those horrible times when families need to stay together and function the strongest, they also have to get around these classifications and the differences in rights that go along with it.
It's not a laughing matter and it seems very insensitive to write it off as an argument of opinion as it effects these families so much beyond theories and opinions. "

jmo wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:42 PM:

" Boycott 1-800Flowers. Shop locally.
You can check out Chris's other business affiliations by googling chris edwards, napa. This will get to his site etc and lead to wtn site which lists their entire affiliated out of town businesses. Support local Napa Valley businesses.
This is brought to you by play fair/fair play. "

GOTNETYET wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:44 PM:

" My HOPE is that the Napa Valley Register as our local voice will report a balanced point of view; Expose the inversion side! Until then, thank you for pointing out those who supported Prop 8 - I know now where I will spend my money in the future. "

marktallis wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:46 PM:

" Dan, you will find that prop 8 supporters are willing to stand up and use their real names, if you look for Chris Edwards He's not there! "

RichardS wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:51 PM:

" Everyone, I must apologize! I used the word "Ballet" instead of "Ballot" and did not notice the error. I must thank "kkjp" for taking the time to point this out and to clarify my error.

"equalnotspecial" even though you feel the majority took away the minorities rights you need to see that it was on the "Ballot" (Thank you kkjp) and it was fairly voted on by all, and unfortunately one side had to win and one lose. This is what happens during the voting process! "

MissNapaValley wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:54 PM:

" I only wish I could personally THANK all the donors to the YES on Prop 8 campaign. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURAGE AND YOUR SUPPORT. I truly admire you, and I will make it a point to bring all of my business to those on Mr. Edward's list.

My only regret is that I didn't donate MORE MONEY to the YES on 8 campaign. If the issue ever comes on the ballot again, I am determined to spend more time and money defending the traditional definition of marriage.

Mr. Edwards, in the interst of full disclosure, perhaps you should tell us where you and your partner work. =)
By the way, according to the state of CA, if you and your partner are registered domestic partners, you have the SAME rights as SPOUSES. So, if we want to be honest an frank, no rights were taken from you. Stop your senseless assault on the institution of marriage. "

reason-ator wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:56 PM:

" Why is it so hard for people to consider that this isn't about rights, this is about re-defining a word.

I have absolutely NO problem with the right of two adults to have a civil union, and any people deserve the rights that go along with that.

Now it those people become terroristic, then I have no problem with them having the same rights as other terrorists. I hope I can remember to consider that not ALL people in the group that the terrorists come from are terroristic.

But the group as a whole would suffer because of the actions of a few in their group, I'd imagine........ "

debstallings wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:57 PM:

" How is this harassment? It's just a matter of public record. It's just TRUTH. Sure, people might lose customers, might lose friends, might even lose the love of a family member when they “out” themselves on one side of a social issue or the other. Welcome to our world. We’ve been facing that dilemma for years. But the important thing is that they’ve done it. They have the courage of their conviction and now they will reap the consequences of their actions - good or bad. I know some of you will support these people and their businesses more because they have contributed to Prop 8, so it works both ways. But however you slice it; it is just information, not harassment. Harassment is having a bunch of people try to legislate morality and declare your marriage null and void. And remember the YES on 8 people sent letters to all of the businesses who supported NO on 8 and demanded that they give an equal amount of money to the YES side or face terrible consequences. You can find that little news gem, including a copy of the threatening letter on the No on 8 website…should you care to inform yourselves. "

Raven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 1:09 PM:

" kfc, you forgot one...the right to marry "

Rich wrote on Dec 4, 2008 1:16 PM:

" So I noticed one of my customers on the list and gave him a call to let him know and to thank him for his support. By the time I got off the phone I had made a very nice $65,000 sale ........

Thanks Chris, you made my day. "

cedwardswine wrote on Dec 4, 2008 1:17 PM:

" The website was not meant to only highlight those who contributed to Yes on 8. Visit the site you will witness videos of people seeking marriage certificates and a view of the journey for our rights in addition to what was focused on in the story.

I am happy to see the dialog on this blog both pro and con. Free speech and debate is healthy and just.

While Gay Marriage is the context of this debate I'd would ask that we focus on the real fundamental issue that being this proposition is the first every to created an act of lawful dicrimination banning an act of freedom. My concern is NOT just marriage but the precedent this proposition establishes in taking away a right granted.

This proposition could be a first step into a slippery slope of bad legislation and defeats the whole premise of our republic for which we were founded.

Our founding fathers created a Republic to protect minorities from Mob rule from the masses. This Proposition is counter intuitive to that precedent and is dangerous for middle class white individuals and other majority rights members now as someday they will be the minority.

It has been said how you treat those different than you, in the minority establishes a great society. Great debate on to free speech and freedoms for all. While you may oppose my approach I respect the debate and hope that you are equally concerned with the precedent and not myopic on just the gay twist to the debate.

On to freedom for all.

Chris Edwards "

jmo wrote on Dec 4, 2008 1:19 PM:

" WOW! This sure put the COPIA situation on the back burner. "

KK wrote on Dec 4, 2008 1:36 PM:

" Instead of getting angry at the people who voted for Hatred/Yes on 8, I decided it's better to feel sorry for them. They are most likely so immersed in the myth that is religion they can't make rational decisions.

Marriage rights do not belong in the hands of our government. "

shareathought wrote on Dec 4, 2008 1:48 PM:

" Wow,

What I found of interest at the h8wallofshame site is the link to the "Dis-honor Roll" naming those, primarily organizations from outside Ca who have donated hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars, to support the measure. If you read quotes attributed to the donor, you find their religious beliefs include no separation of church and state (and seemingly intend "...to change the culture...").

4family, I too believe that the point is that it is all about family (I appreciate that you could put into words an explanation of something I too have felt).

Thank you NVR for providing a format for public discussion; the negative (and hate-filled comments), show us that there are many who remain ignorant, at-the-same-time, many are learning,

marktallis "Note: Due to some contributors' misspellings of where they reside, some records may not show up in these search results." I am sure there are other accounting or printing errors. Is it possible that he contributed through an organization such as the the LGBTQ community? There are many, many people who donate through an organization both pro and con. If you feel the need, you might do more research.

Thank you Chris, I too appreciate the debate (just not the mean/nasty attitudes of some). "

napan007 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 1:59 PM:

" Good for you, Chris Edwards! Fight the good fight!!! Public info is public info, people. Don't donate if you don't want your name known. I always keep that in mind when I donate to a cause or a candidate. "

diehard4ever wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:05 PM:

" More like the wall of FAME!!!!!!!!! "

Rich wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:10 PM:

" shareathought, kinda funny how when you do it to the yes on 8 folks it is justifiable and when the yes on 8's do it to you it is mean and nasty.
Can you spell hypocrite ? "

Raven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:41 PM:

" hang in there Chris "

MissNapaValley wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:45 PM:

" To Napa Valley Register:

I implore you to be fair and balanced in your coverage. Please do a FRONT PAGE article in which you list the names of the local opponents of PROP 8.

Be sure to include the fact that Council member MARK VAN GORDER contributed $100 on 9/11/08 and $360 on 9/30/08 to the NO on 8 campaign.

Had I known this information prior to the election, I would not have donated to his campaign, nor would I have voted for him.

Also NVR, you might want to include
Deb Stallings name on that list....afterall she is a vocal opponent against Prop 8 and she is the director of Napa's Lincoln Theater.

That way we can ALL make informed decisions as to what places of business and persons we choose to support with our dollars and votes. "

elb wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:52 PM:

" I'm grateful for the list. Now I know who I WILL do business with and or support and encourage.

Strong-arming people into giving up their freedom of speech and freedom to voice their opinion or support of a proposition only serves to undermine your own h8-filled cause.

The only people I see with hate in their hearts are the people that persecute and harass others for exercising their freedoms. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:00 PM:

" MissNapaValley:
If a Yes or No on Prop 8 was a deciding factor for you, then you should have asked every person on your ballot what their stance was.
As for debstallings, look at the comments right above yours and you will see her statement on this topic.
--Dan "

Raven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:05 PM:

" who is strong-arming whom?.....

I have seen people on other threads say they will go out into the parking lots and fire any of their employees who have no on Prop 8 bumper stickers...and use any means possible to make sure no homosexuals are ever hired.
this is simply a listing of a public record...by all means...put up a web site with the no on Prop 8 backers names...but since Napa County voted against prop 8, I am not sure what you expect the boycott effect to be..

publishing this list does nothing to impinge upon anyone's freedom of speech..what it does is remove the shadows "

Rich wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:12 PM:

" NVR-Dan Ross, Funny you say that. I actually did do that and surprisingly all but one person took the time to reply.
For me it was a no brainer, I want people in power that have values similar to mine. "

napamomma wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:14 PM:

" NO ON PROP 8!! "

grape wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:24 PM:

" Chris Edward's company Wine Tasting Network is a major shipper of a lot of wineries wine club shipments. I'm sure they would hate to lose the business of a lot of those companies. He may want to rethink his website. "

Two Cents wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:28 PM:

" KFC.. you said it all right on.
I dont understand what all this civil rights talk is about. Gays are able to have a legal civil union, which entitles them to all the same rights as a married person.
I would like for someone to please explain to me why you are so bent on the word "marriage"? You have the same legal rights as everyone else. As long as you have the same rights as everyone else, why are you fighting over a word? Why cant you just leave and respect that a "marriage" is traditionally for a man and a woman?
I truly dont understand. I really do believe that this is more about forcing an acceptance of your lifestyle.
And Im so tired of the catchy little hate/8 thing... to all the people who claim that those of us who voted in support of 8 are haters... who are you to say that? Why does it mean that I hate someone just because I dont agree with their lifestyle? I have some friends whom I dearly love, but dont necessarily agree with their lifestyle.
Seems to me you are the ones spreading hate and nastiness, by accusing others of things which arent true. "

Raven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:47 PM:

" again....two cents...why are you so bent on not letting same sex couples be married?...doesn't affect hetero couples at all...and same couples do not have the same rights...that is the point....there is a big difference between not agreeing with someone's lifestyle and voting to strip away one of their basic civil rights.

I know...let's all make little name tags that identify our position on Prop 8 and wear them when we go out....that makes it simple for the yes on Prop 8 folks to know who they will associate with and do business with and for the no on prop 8 to know who voted to strip away civil rights .. no surprises that way... "

winemd wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:50 PM:

" I did not vote for prop 8, but I am not impressed with the negativity of a "wall of shame" and I would say the same if the yes on 8 side published something similar. I don't think this does anything constructive. I think the website could be useful in "putting a face to the Napa community" but by putting up something that negative it defeats the purpose. "

napapatriot wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:53 PM:

" Wow if only I had known that a little bit of information that is public knowledge with just a bit of googling is all that was needed to get the blood and life of Napa active and boiling I would have followed Chris's lead and created some debate years ago on issues that are relevant to our local community.

I find it ironic that Chris is attacked for pulling together information that is freely available via a 5 minute public records search. Ha! technology aint it great!

Congratulations Chris on getting people to think. Of course I voted no on 8 not because I care about marriage but because I am concerned about any precedent of rights taken away.

The irony here is Chris has not even gotten married he will some day I am sure but he just does not want to be denied the right to say, I do nor I don't at this time.

The people of Napa are funny. Chris keep informing and entertaining us at least you've got people talking.

David M "

crusherfan wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:53 PM:

" wall of lame...let's post the names of all the contributers of other controversial issues.people should be able to support the groups that share their views without being concerned about smear campaigns such as this.the voters have spoken get over it "

cavmpm wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:00 PM:

" All i have to say is that if you read the artical (ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICAL!) you will see that the artical is not condoning or opposing the web-site or the gentleman that started the site. The Napa Register is simply stating what is happening. So maybe everyone should take a second and think about things out side their bubble, before they complain. "

pharper wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:12 PM:

" Well, now I know where not to spend my money.

And hey, when someone comes up with a Wall of Fame listing those who donated to the No on 8 campaign, I'm sure NVR will put it up. But the people who voted yes on 8 are so smug and satisfied that I doubt anyone will bother.

It'll be overturned. I have no doubts. And I will be celebrating when it is. Unlike the yes on 8 people, I only celebrate when rights that belong to people are granted, not when they're stripped away. "

napapatriot wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:17 PM:

" A final thought for those that are criticizing and threatening Mr. Edwards for exposing what has already been exposed ironically consider how much good he does in this community.

Through his company and pesonally he has contributed thousands of dollars in support of local arts via the Lincoln Theater, healthcare via fundraising for the Care Network and the Queen of the Valley, raised funds for Cope Family Services, Napa Emergency Womens Shelter and others. Those complainer on here if you would devote one 3rd of the time he does to making this community straight and gay a better place you might have a chance at sainthood. Chris good job again in all you do and stand by your convictions you inspire us all. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:17 PM:

" To Napa Valley Register, specifically Dan:

Please address the real issue here:
fair and balanced coverage. Your response skirted the main point of my post: that the Napa Register should do a FRONT page article in the near future in which it lists the names of local opponents of Prop 8 who contributed financially, including MARK VAN GORDER who donated at least $460 to the No on 8 campaign. As I am sure you have read, I am just one of several on this thread who are advocating this. Please consider being fair and putting aside your own personal bias.

If you re-read my last post you will see that I was referring to the fact that my local council member (MARK VAN GORDER) donated MONEY to the opponents of Prop 8. The fact that he donated MONEY in opposition to Prop 8 would have been a deciding factor for me. Looking back, I wish I never donated money to his campaign, and in the future, I will not vote for him again.

I did read Deb Stallings comments above mine; that is what prompted me to include her name in my post. She should have no objection to what I have posted because "it is just the truth" nor should she object to your printing her name in the paper in a list of local opponents of Prop 8. Be sure to include the fact that she is the director of NAPA'S LINCOLN THEATER if you decide to do so. "

shareathought wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:32 PM:

" Rich, I believe the meaning may have more importance then the spelling...

hypocrite*
"1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs."
(*from dictionary.reference.com)

love
A more difficult word to define might be "love". The dictionary site has numerous meanings listed but one found through Wikipedia is: "The cultural ideal of familial* love is one that is committed, unconditional, selfless, emotionally full, and reciprocally returned by the other."

Defining fa⋅mil⋅ial*
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a family: familial ties.
(from dictionary.reference.com)

Some valuable quotes:

He that feareth is not made perfect in love. I John (ch. IV, v. 18)

Love worketh no ill to his neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Romans (ch. XIII, v. 10)

Love is perfect kindness.
~Joseph Campbell~

Love never claims, it ever gives.
~Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)~ "

Raven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:34 PM:

" why read the entire story, cavmpm....it might destroy the illusion too many labor under.... "

Two Cents wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:35 PM:

" Raven... way to answer a question with a question... people usually do that when they dont have any logical response.
Now, if you'd really like to answer my question, I am really interested in the response.
Read KFC's post and the lengthy list of benefits....

Now what rights exactly, when it comes to being a union, dont gays have??

And in my opinion (which Im entitled to, thanks, so dont h8 me for it), the marriage thing does affect hetero couples in that the sacrament of marriage has to do with religion. If gays want to have a civil union in the eyes of the law, thats fine. But as far as the church is concerned, no.

All the so-called haters that you claim, none of them seem to say anything hateful about gays. They respect their right to love who they want and even support a civil union. But as far as marriage is concerned, many people, like myself, want to preserve the tradition of man/woman.

Why does that fire you up so much? What's hateful about preserving a moral tradition?

As long as they are still able to enjoy all the rights and privilege that come with a legal union, why is the marriage word so important?

And please this time, dont answer my question with my own question! "

MissNapaValley wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:38 PM:

" To Cavmpm:

The mere fact the NVR decided to waste their time and ink on this
non-event by giving an angry, bitter same-sex marriage advocate a forum (on the FRONT page, no less) is biased and despicable. That's NOT NEWS, its jounalistic waste.

If you look at the big picture, i.e. the fact that the NVR even considered this newsworthy, you will have a clearer understanding of our perspective.
One can't be so narrow-minded as to judge biasness based on the fact the NVR didn't specifically say, "Yes we endorse this website," or "Yes we condone what this person is doing."
Look at the entire context. Then maybe you will understand our complaints. "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:44 PM:

" This isn't about where to spend money, it's about getting your tires slashed, or worse... You folks on the list, watch your backs... Now you know the type of people we have to deal with... They will stop at nothing, and you are not safe.... That is the reason the list was published... It's called terrorism... "

napan1961 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 5:02 PM:

" MissNapaValley:
Are you trying to tell me that a story that gets 118 comments in 4 hours is not newsworthy???? "

MissNapaValley wrote on Dec 4, 2008 5:07 PM:

" This debate is NOT about equal rights or civil rights. It's about EXTRA rights and homosexual couples are NOT entitled to change the definition of marriage to suit their lifestyle.

The voters of CA have spoken twice on this issue. YES on 8 has prevailed.

Stop chastising the Mormons and Catholics for standing up and voting in accordance with their beliefs. Stop invading churches in Michigan. Stop physically beating up peaceful Christian missionaries on San Francisco sidewalks. Stop assaulting little old ladies with crosses who are peacefully demonstrating and exercising their right to free speech. Practice what you preach and show a some tolerance. "

pharper wrote on Dec 4, 2008 5:16 PM:

" Extra?

That's really funny, because last I checked, gays didn't legally have the right to marry anymore, thanks to the morally corrupt Prop 8. So granting them the right to marry would be granting them full rights, not extra. Would you please enumerate for me these "extra rights" that homosexuals would have had if Prop 8 had failed? "

shareathought wrote on Dec 4, 2008 5:26 PM:

" MNV, it may be that we, as individuals, have differing points of view*.

"*
1. A manner of viewing things; an attitude.
2.
1. A position from which something is observed or considered; a standpoint.
2. The attitude or outlook of a narrator or character in a piece of literature, a movie, or another art form." "

Raven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 5:28 PM:

" what bothers me, two cents, is imposing your religion upon others who do not practice that faith....simple as that. Oh, and no one is saying anything about forcing churches to recognize or perform same sex marriages.....never has been, that is a smoke screen from the yes on 8 proponents....

and two cents...I have answered that so many times, but once again domestic partnerships do give couples the same tax benefits as married couples to start with....that the domestic partnership is not recognized outside the borders of the state and companies are not required to recognize them or provide domestic partner benefits ... those do for a start

and MNV, what extra rights are same sex couples getting by being allowed to marry?

As for the coverage....I think the biggest complaint is that donors to the yes on prop 8 campaign can no longer keep their actions to the shadows...if the donations was such a selfless and honorable action to take...why be upset because people know about it....as has been said a number of times....this is all public record...

one more thing...who says a newspaper has to provide fair and balanced coverage....what does that mean, equal numbers of inches for all sides of an issue? I would be interested to know if unavailable for comment meant they couldn't be reached or refused to comment...but I have a hunch, several donors on the list were contacted for their response about being on the wall. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Dec 4, 2008 5:37 PM:

" Napan1961:

Using your implied logic, none of the national stories are newsworthy because no one has yet commented on them.

A man compiles a list of locals who contributed money to Prop 8 on his website. No, I don't particularly consider that to be newsworthy. First, the names are already public information and have been for some time now. Second, the concept of "boycotting" or calling attention to businesses that supported Prop 8 is OLD news. I believe that was covered about a month ago after the election and Prop 8 PREVAILED.

So, if I compile a list on my personal website of local persons and businesses that contributed to No on 8, the NVR should do a FRONT page article on that? Keep in mind, this is already public information that is readily available on the internet. Tell me, Napan1961, would you consider that newsworthy? If so, I'll get to work and you can read about me and my "list" on the FRONT page of the NVR. (Of course, this is assuming the NVR would be fair and balanced in their coverage of this non-event.) "

napawiner wrote on Dec 4, 2008 5:49 PM:

" If Chris Edwards works for 1800flowers, he also works for the Winetasting Network (WTN Services) which is a wine shipment fulfillment company. I think it would make an impact on this type of behavior if wineries choose to do business with other fulfillment companies who don't employ people who behave this way....I know MANY people in the winery industry and will certainly share this article with them. "

watchin&listenin wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:00 PM:

" Hey, thanks for sharing this great list. I will make sure my gay friends who ove to spend money in you town knows where not to spend their money. Trust me the have more than you can imagine...... "

eyeamme wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:02 PM:

" To those of you with similar remarks to John Richards about the Register publishing this list. They did not create it, they just publicized it. So stop asking for a list of No on 8 supporters from the Register. It's hard to publicize something that isn't in existence (I checked, no list for No on 8 supporters). So stop complaining. And JR, this is hardly a matter to "shake hands" over and say it was a good game. This is affects peoples' lives. They have every reason to be upset. It isn't a ball game. As for chastising the Mormons and whatnot, just because they are standing up for what they believe in does not mean that what they believe in is right. The gay population and those who support it have stood up for what they believe in and yet, they are chastised, ridiculed, harassed, degraded and for what? So that the sanctity of marriage is upheld, because the Bible says that marriage is between a man and woman. Well, let's deny rights to other minorities for ridiculous reasons. Oh wait. We have. And what about the Separation of Church and State? Your religion does not dictate how everyone is to live. Getting back to the Bible, lets deny people the pleasure of eating shell fish. Let's stone our wives! Let's sell our daughters into slavery! Let's pick and choose! It is very hypocritical of you (meaning those who say that the Bible says same sex marriage is wrong) to only follow the parts of the Bible that you want to follow. How does a homosexual couple affect your life by getting married? Please. Someone. Answer this question. "

napawineo wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:15 PM:

" Raven, Time for the Mattlock rerun...give it a rest....Gays LOST get over it... "

grape wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:16 PM:

" pharper said "thanks to the morally corrupt Prop 8."

Prop 8 is morally corrupt? If any morals are involved it's the reason Prop. 8 passed...people find it morally wrong to sleep with the same sex and by voting for gay marriage their vote would be condoning that action.

As far as your asking what the "extra" rights are, the same extra rights I would receive if I wanted rights to marry my dog in a legal ceremony. It's not a right to marry anyone other than someone of the opposite human sex. The people of CA voted so unless some corrupt court undoes the law even after the people have spoken then the rights of everyone stay the same. "

winejumper wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:17 PM:

" Sorry I couldn't respond to "coigue" sooner, had to do that work thing.

The issue is not printing the supporters names, Edwards is proposing boycotting (the scare tactic) the people and their businesses that don't agree with him. That way Edwards is affecting the employees of those businesses. Some of those employees may even have voted no on 8. TERRORIST call innocent people that get killed collateral damage, to them, this is acceptable. "

Skip M. wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:20 PM:

" Wall of Shame??? I would call this a Wall of Pride! I'll Tell you what, while you're at it, include Skip M. (Dan, feel free to give these folks my real name for this honor). How many times has this measure been on the California Ballot, only to have the same outcome every time. The people have spoken. Taking this matter to the courts only wastes the courts time. If you choose an alternative life style, embrace the alternative. Most of us have not problem with that. You don't need to circumvent the choices the rest of us make to enjoy that which you have embaced. Viva La Differance! "

Bdopple wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:33 PM:

" Welcome to gay fascism … understanding appears to be a one way street. What’s next the gay version of the “night of the long knives”?

Once again the NVR failed the community by not providing any balance in the article. "

e-man wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:33 PM:

" First; a right that never existed in the first place was not taken away. Second; The illegally elected atty. gen. Jerry Brown change the wording on the measure to read "eliminates the right" Third; In order to serve as CA. atty.gen.one must be licensed to practice law in CA. Ol' Less is More was NOT. Fourth; Why was Chris Edwards not married to his, uh,whatever of ten years if they had the right and it was taken away? Hmmmmmmmmm????? Gotta go. Looking for the "Real Killers" and Obama's birth certificate don't ya know. "

missbanana707 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:41 PM:

" why do you have to hate homosexuals? they are Not doing anything to you! leave them alone! who cares about who they marry? what are u jealous? God! thats why this world is so messed up! bcuz of all the judgemental, hyprocrit haters! dont cause other people problems cuz u cant deal with you own!!! "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:43 PM:

" RichardS. The point is, 8 never should have been on either the ballot or the ballet. Our founders knew majorities would restrict the rights of minorities if given a chance, and they constructed the government to prevent exactly this situation. Direct democracy is a new thing, and this is the first time a simple majority has taken away a right recognized by the government, from a minority.
What sets Prop. 8 apart is that it was a deliberate attack on a group of people who grew up being bullied and demonized. It was an act of intolerance inflicted upon a minority using the force of law. "

Two Cents wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:43 PM:

" For the record, its not just MY religion that shares this moral code...
Now, Im no theology professor, but Im pretty confident that EVERY religion/faith in the world says this is wrong.. not just mine. So Im not imposing MY beliefs on anyone.
And even if you're not a religious person, homosexuality goes against nature.
Now, you can all argue that there are some animals who engage in forms of homosexuality, but Im not really sure how that proves your point. For one, we are not animals, we are humans. Two, there is potential for defects in all genetic makeups, humans and animals alike.
I suppose Im a hater now for calling homosexuality a defect. Im not saying it to be hateful or hurtful. If homosexuality wasnt a defect, and it was the way nature intended, then there would be no procreation and no furthering of species. Therefore, I think its pretty obvious that its a defect of nature.
Obviously, its nothing that a gay person has a choice or control about. But, why should one group be able to change the definition of marriage (which is a sacred religious vow to many of us)?
You're saying that I shouldnt be able to define a word based on my religious beliefs, but that is what the word means. Civil union implies the law's recognition of two people joined together, marriage implies the religious recognition. And as far as I know, no religions recognize gay marriage. So civil union it is.
The people have spoken twice. "

drtymick75 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:43 PM:

" It's amazing how people get hot and bothered when a story like this comes up. I for one voted NO on 8. I believe we should all have rights. Remember you the Jewish man.. Or you, the African American. The Irish. The Natives! Everyone has been hated one reason or another. What I find funny is how the Catholic Church who is for Prop 8, has Priest(male), who have molested little boys(also male), yet being gay is a sin...
Now as for Chris Edwards.. I dont believe peoples names should be posted, as in possible crimes that can incure. Next the "nazi's" will be finding out who voted for Obama..Those same "nazi's" are the ones who voted Yes on 8. WE ARE ALL EQUAL! "

drtymick75 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:52 PM:

" My name is Paul Henn. Put me on the list of NO on 8 voters. Equal rights for everyone.
P.s. I'm happily with a woman, with kids, and straight. "

swrlygrl wrote on Dec 4, 2008 7:15 PM:

" Well said Two Cents!!!

I have to say this, we had our "yes on 8" signs stolen (thats theft by the way), destroyed (Vandalism) and one Sunday while we were at church, they not only stole our sign, but left a used condom on our lawn (vile!). So who is showing hate now??

It's so unbelievable how the No on 8 supporters can throw around such slander, but yet don't look at what they are doing.

And to Shareathought, what Bible are you using anyway???

I personally following the Bible (KJV) as much as I possibly can. And the Bible CLEARLY says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

Let me ask... Who created marriage? GOD of course! But God is against homosexuality. Gays can still have a civil union. Do they feel that if they get "married", that it makes what they do, okay with God???

Cause it doesn't!!! "

swrlygrl wrote on Dec 4, 2008 7:20 PM:

" To drtymick75:
How can you compare, African Americans, Jews, Irish and so forth to homosexuality!!? I'm hispanic, I didn't choose to be, but I am. I can't decide to be Irish, nor African American any less than they can to be hispanic. But I CAN choose to be gay, if I want to!!! But I don't!
IT'S A CHOICE! "

KiiN wrote on Dec 4, 2008 7:39 PM:

" Live and Let Live!!! Why do people feel like they have the right to dictate how other people live? It's ridiculous! I think the real fear should be in that thought, not describing people as "terrorists". "

pharper wrote on Dec 4, 2008 7:40 PM:

" Prop 8 IS morally corrupt. it denies fellow AMERICAN citizens the basic right of being able to marry a consenting adult partner (I'll ignore your comment about marrying your dog, because it's irrelevant). If homosexuals don't get the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals (and under the same name, marriage) then why should they have to pay taxes? Clearly we are relegating them to the status of second-class citizens, because their unions (again, between consenting adults) are somehow not as important or special as heterosexual ones.

The right to marry belongs to all American citizens. You can whine and cry and rant about pedophiles and polygamists and bestiality all you want, but they are irrelevant to the issue and have nothing to do with it. It is morally corrupt to deny human beings the basic civil right of marriage on the basis of something as inconsequential as the sex of the partners. It does not affect you. Keep your nose out of other people's business if it doesn't harm you or others. It is really that simple. "

pharper wrote on Dec 4, 2008 7:46 PM:

" For the record, being gay is not a choice. There’s plenty of scientific evidence to prove it, but no one seems interested in that, so I’ll offer this advice—ask someone who’s gay whether or not they chose to be. I can bet you that, (barring the weird and unusual instances some people throw out) they will tell you that they did not. I see no reason why they’d lie about it.

Frankly, swrlygrl, I don’t think anyone is looking for your approval or for God’s. Your God doesn’t sound like one I or anyone I know would want to follow. The God I’d believe in, were I religious, would be one who supported the equal rights of all.

Of course, you did say you follow the Bible as closely as possible. You don’t eat shellfish, right? And, of course, I’m sure you don’t wear two different types of cloth at the same time. I mean, after all, Leviticus says those are both abominations. Oh, and how much are you asking for your daughter? I hear it’s okay to sell your daughter, or offer her up to an angry mob as a sacrifice. Oh, yeah, I forgot: you don’t mind if we stone my neighbor, right? After all, she wasn’t a virgin when she married, or so I hear. "

alucawanza wrote on Dec 4, 2008 7:57 PM:

" Swirlygrl: It is not a choice. You are born gay or heterosexual. That's a fact backed by scientific research. You cannot choose to be gay because you aren't!
God did not create marriage. It is a manmade institution which is governed by law. Try to get a divorce. What must you do? Go through a legal process.
God is not against homosexuality. He made all men and women. He made gay people gay...If you don't believe that you probably believe that men and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
Yes it IS a right to marry someone of the same sex. Anything else is discrimination. It is singling out a group of humanity and saying they are worth less than your group.
Prop. 8 is just another form of gay bashing. Prop. 8 is a hate crime. Your comments that are pro 8 are full of vitriol and hate under the guise of righeousness and thinking you know what God wants. Shame on you all. Hold up a mirror to your faces as you spew your venomous tirades so you can see into the blackness of your souls.
You all need to meet a happy gay family and see how "normal" it is. Two parents working, paying taxes, taking the kids to school, planning vacations, living with high expectations for the future.
How many of you are part of the 50% of heterosexual marriages that didn't work? Did God approve of your divorce? Are your children happy?
Equal rights for all Americans or it isn't America anymore. "

CaliforniaNative wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:05 PM:

" I appreciate all the comments about this issue. I lived in Napa for 17 years and although I moved away several years ago I still like to know what goes on in Napa. I voted yes on 8 and I thought most people in Napa were against it. I am very glad and proud to know there are still some moral people in that city instead of all the empty wine glitz that I got sick of. the NVR used my divorce on the front page without my knowledge or my side of the domestic violence story to sell its biased paper and now there is more opportunity to see both sides. I am again proud to be a CHRISTIAN American. We Christians are used to being persecuted for our beliefs. That has been going on long before the gay rights thing. Bring it on! "

winewoman wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:09 PM:

" Geez, Chris, look what you started! I'll tell you something. there are people who have posted their real names on this blog and I happen to know them personally. I also happen to know that they are NOT ones to speak about the sanctity of marriage. How dare you get on your soapbox and proclaim the sanctity of marriage. Besides, who are "we" (heterosexual couples) to tell others what marriage is when WE can't get it right. There are liars, cheaters and philanderers who have posted on this blog - you are hypocrites. "

Miss Halley wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:20 PM:

" The fact is the majority of voters in Napa voted NO ON 8. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:25 PM:

" a teacher, thanks for your balanced comment. We have often disagreed in the past, but I'm gratified to see that you're not one of those one-sided ideologists who thinks his side can do no wrong. "

swrlygrl wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:33 PM:

" Scientific research??? Whatever...as far as the Bible. Yes, I try to follow it as much as possible. I'm a sinner (saved by grace), so therefore, I'm not perfect. I still sin, and make mistakes, blah blah blah. But, it's not only in Leviticus okay. It's also in the New Testament where it's not natural to be with the same sex. I believe the Bible to be 100% accurate. If it is not natural, then my conclusion would be that it's a CHOICE!

I do not hate gays. I have an uncle who is gay, and I love very very much. Probably even more now (that I am Christian), more than I ever have before. Just like as a parent, we love our children, but don't love what our children do all the time. It doesn't change how we love them, just like God...He loves the sinner but hates the sin.
The fact is, Yes on 8 won. Period.
Accept it. Just like I have to accept Obama as my next president. Even though I'm not happy about it.
I know this for sure,
God is still on the Throne! "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:38 PM:

" 4familiy, Prop 8 doesn't prevent gays from acting responsibly, whatever gave you that idea? Responsibility comes from within, not whether your piece of paper says 'marriage' or 'domestic partnership'. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:43 PM:

" Is this the same Chris Edwards who once ran for the Napa City Council?
If so, his political ambitions are pretty much toast after this fiasco. "

CaliforniaNative wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:45 PM:

" A BIG AMEN TO YOU SISTER SWRLYGRL! "

MyWrites wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:47 PM:

" Two Cents - why do you so vehemently resist the idea of same sex couples wanting the same symbolism applied to their commitment to each another. Rather than limiting the definition of marriage, why not embrace and extend the symbolism of love and commitment to other relationships which also qualify as civil unions. I don't see gays receiving extra treatment here, only equal treatment.

I find it difficult to comprehend why you are unwilling to extend equality to people who wish to share the same blessings you currently receive. If your church wishes not to participate in gay marriages on "moral grounds", so be it. Gays will go elsewhere to acquire the mantel and responsibility of the title "marriage". There are other churches that do not choose to discriminate. So how is this a threat to you and yours?

And those of you who think a California civil union carries the same weight as "marriage", you are sadly misinformed.
Many health insurance companies charge more to "partners" in a civil union versus a married couple. The bias is in the title and the assumption that "gays" will have a higher incidence of disease than a "married" couple.

When civil union partners leave the state of California and move to a state that does not protect or acknowledge gay unions, what do you think happens to all that equality under your definition?

If you consider this moral filth or perversion, I would suggest that somewhere in the past your church may have also considered women owning property, having the right to vote, marriage between races, allowing blacks to have their freedom from slavery to also be perversions against the guidance of the bible.

And MissNapaValley - is "biasness" somewhat like "truthiness"? "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:48 PM:

" debstallings wrote: " How is this harassment? It's just a matter of public record. It's just TRUTH."
So you would have no problem with abortion protesters publishing the home addresses of all medical personnel involved in abortions? It's the "TRUTH", right? "

CaliforniaNative wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:52 PM:

" Winewoman - hypocrites or sinners we are one and all on both sides and Miss Halley Napa lives in a vacuum. The vote was a YES. "

napascot wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:53 PM:

" swrlygrl,

when did you choose to be heterosexual, and for the others that believe it is a choice, when did you choose? "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:56 PM:

" cedwardswine wrote "this proposition is the first every [sic] to created [sic] an act of lawful dicrimination [sic]..."
No, it's not.
What about the law that says women can't walk topless down city streets while men can? What about the law that says men can't go into public restrooms marked "Women"? Those are just two examples, I'm sure there are many other instances of legal 'discrimination'. "

eyeamme wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:00 PM:

" swrlygrl, you aren't that special. Plenty on No on 8 signs were also stolen or vandalized. I know a woman in the tree streets of Napa whose No on 8 sign was taken, replaced by a Yes on 8 sign along with a Yes on 8 bumper sticker placed on her car. Also vandalism. As for homosexuality being a choice, who would choose to live a life of ridicule and harassment? Why would someone wake up one day to live a life where they are spat at, cursed at, hated, denied rights, etc. ? Oh and as for god being on the throne. That's assuming there is a god. Not everyone believes in god. If you are going to follow the bible 100%, I advise you to stop eating shell fish and sell your daughters into slavery. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:09 PM:

" Two Cents. The United Church of Christ, Unitarians, MCC, some Methodist, Episcopal, Jewish, and other religious leaders and followers celebrate marriage equality. No religious group, even a majority, should be allowed to tell the other religious groups what rites they can or cannot perform. Religious freedom was restricted by prop. 8. While religions should be free to believe what they want even when it is not true (See Galileo, Inquisitions, witch hunts, slavery, etc.) they should not be free to impose those beliefs on everyone else, including those other religions who don't share their views. 8 never should have been on any ballot. Our founders knew majorities would restrict the rights of minorities if given a chance, and they constructed the government to prevent exactly this situation. Direct democracy is a relatively new thing, and this is the first time a simple majority has taken away a right recognized by the government, from a minority. Separate but equal is inherently unequal.
What sets Prop. 8 apart is that it was a deliberate attack on a group of people who grew up being bullied, demonized, and rejected. It was an act of intolerance inflicted upon a vulnerable minority using the force of law. "

Raven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:14 PM:

" JR....the donations were a public record...the addresses of abortion providers are not, simple as that.

JR, you trot out the bathrooms and topless analogy and each time you get told that 1) there are many places where women can walk topless and 2) the restrooms restrictions are based on what is perceived to be a public safety/health determination...so can you show me the risk to public safety and health in allowing two people who love each other and want to stay legally committed to each other? and with the advent or unisex bathrooms in many businesses...who is in the wrong bathroom? "

Miss Halley wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:14 PM:

" CaliforniaNative - I said that the No Vote
won in Napa.....so much for the vacuum
Check the election link for Napa County "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:16 PM:

" Raven wrote: "publishing this list does nothing to impinge upon anyone's freedom of speech..what it does is remove the shadows "
In that case, you would have no problem with abortion protesters publishing the home addresses of medical personnel who engaged in abortions, assuming the information was in the public record? Just removing 'shadows' right?
You would do well to read the comment submitted by your compatriot, a teacher. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:18 PM:

" John. Those restrictions were not voted in by a popular majority vote and did not repeal rights that had been previously recognized. This was about keeping a minority group from having equality under the law. "

swrlygrl wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:19 PM:

" to napascot~
When I married my husband! Seriously, I've always been straight. Though, in high school, I remember having immoral thoughts (bisexual), and knew that it was wrong, but I prayed and never acted on them. Even then (I wasn't a Christian), I knew that it was wrong and unnatural. I believe that we can have unnatural thoughts, just like when someone cuts us off in traffic,haven't we thought about doing that back to them? But most of us wouldn't do it, right? Nonetheless, even though, I could have easily acted on the desire to be with the same sex in high school, I didn't. Just like many people have desires to have affairs...it doesn't make it right. Couldn't we argue that a person can't help falling in love with more than one person. As I'm sure many have, but ulitimately they had to make a choice. It's all about choice people. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:24 PM:

" napan1961 wrote: "Are you trying to tell me that a story that gets 118 comments in 4 hours is not newsworthy????"

Let's face it, it's nothing but sensationalism, but that's what sells newspapers... "

swrlygrl wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:28 PM:

" To eyeamme~
I never said I was that special! Unfortunately, I was just one of the thousands it happened to!
As for the whole shellfish and selling our daughters, is that all you all got....oh brother!!! Actually, I don't eat shellfish, and of course I wouldn't sell my daughter, because I would never have to!
And you know what...not all gays are spat at, cursed at and hated. That's so cliche. Hollywood has glamorized that lifestyle so much it's ridiculous. Christians are hated just as much as any other minority. So get over it. Christians are mocked on TV all the time. But do you see us crying and whining about?!

YES ON 8~YAY! "

boise1 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:28 PM:

" Way to go Chris. My wife and kids are 100% behind you. We must stop discrimination in this country. "

czyfingers wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:30 PM:

" Keep up the good fight Mr. Edwards and others. There is no such thing as "sore losers" when you are supporting a just cause based on civil rights. Civil rights causes in this country have never been an overnight success, but the tide is turning and ultimately, we have to hope that compassion and understanding for other people will outweigh the hatred and intolerance for those who only wish to be treated equally.

As for religious arguments, I am not a religious person, but even if I were, I would prefer to follow the golden rule of "do to others what you would have them do to you", than searching for obscure, outdated references in Leviticus....

Keep up the good work! "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:30 PM:

" pharper wrote: "you did say you follow the Bible as closely as possible. You don’t eat shellfish, right?"

Sigh.
You just keep using those same tired old arguments, pharper, the same ones that have been shot down here many times.
You must not follow any of the Amendments to the Constitution, right, since they are not in the original, older version? "

verum wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:32 PM:

" Is the teapot full yet? "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:37 PM:

" Raven wrote: "domestic partnership is not recognized outside the borders of the state and companies are not required to recognize them or provide domestic partner benefits."

And just how does Prop 8 affect any of that?
Let's face it, you tossed in a red herring smokescreen like you usually do. "

steph wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:43 PM:

" I agree with teacher here.

I empathize with the angst.

However, part of maturity is regrouping and suppressing the urge to lash out, because acting on impulse, on emotions, is short-sighted and counter-productive.

Gays would do well to take a softer approach, to introduce themselves to the world as likeable folks who garner empathy.

What people are doing now is inviting resentment.

The civil rights leaders of the 50s and 60s knew that. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:47 PM:

" Raven wrote: "As for the coverage....I think the biggest complaint is that donors to the yes on prop 8 campaign can no longer keep their actions to the shadows..."

You're missing the point. When I contributed my $50 I was fully prepared to see my name on some public list. However, the Register chose to print only the pro-8 list, NOT the anti-8 list. It is *that* unfairness of coverage that I'm complaining about. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:56 PM:

" Raven wrote: "you forgot one...the right to marry."

You're being obtuse. There is no universal right to marry. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a man and a woman have a right to marry, but they have not made a similar ruling for same-sex couples. "

winechickj wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:01 PM:

" Wall of Shame?? This is harassment. People are using this an excuse to call businesses and harass them and the implication is that individual citizens will be harassed too. If the register published an article about names of people that opposed prop 8 and they got harassing phone calls there would be lawsuits filed. The people of California have voted at least twice and passed this amendment- marriage is between a man and a woman. It is the basis of our society. "

dmom wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:02 PM:

" Two cents said "Now, Im no theology professor, but Im pretty confident that EVERY religion/faith in the world says this is wrong.. not just mine."

Sorry. I couldn't pass up this statement. I hear so much confusion in the outrage expressed on this blog. It's good that there's a venue to voice opinions/beliefs rather than blatantly discriminate in public. We wouldn't do that to fellow human beings, right to their faces, right?

I am straight and a Christian. I attend a well-established local church. Our doors are open to everyone. Nobody shows a sexual preference card to the greeters on Sunday. Nobody asks. Nobody cares. My God welcomes all people.

So don't tell me that this is a religious discussion because religion is interpretive, as is the Bible. To decide what one believes is a freedom Americans enjoy. This is a human rights issue and only a human rights issue.

What many people miss is the incredible strength of the Gay/Straight alliance; something it took a long time to build. As we accept, not tolerate, but truly accept differences as the way of the world, we only become better at understanding human rights and in my view, more "Christian-like" in our behavior. "

napagirl1970 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:04 PM:

" I couldn't take the time to read all the responses, but Chris is a stand up guy, do you know what he does in this community! Give it a rest, I think what people contributed should be public knowledge, horray for that, I voted NO, it's a cryin shame, what people do in their lives is their business! I think equality for all...I lived with my hubby for several years before we married, and guess what, I was in the right UNION to get him medical and other bene's...the fact that this prop did not pass makes me sick to my tummy!!! Chris keep on rockin with your wall of shame! Love you! "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:13 PM:

" eyeonme wrote" How does a homosexual couple affect your life by getting married? Please. Someone. Answer this question."

I could answer that question, but I suspect it is simply posed for rhetorical impact.

Let me ask you one first. Why should gays want to cause so much animosity in those who believe marriage is only between a man and a woman, when there is no actual benefit to be gained? California's domestic partnerships bestow all the rights and privileges of marriage. The civil rights movement had actual benefits to be gained for its minorities, while the push for gay marriage doesn't. From our viewpoint, you guys are trying to ram this change down our throats just to make us angry. "

shareathought wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:13 PM:

" Reading the quotes (below), from the posts (above), makes me wonder if the writer is concerned about being bi-sexual and is using the bible or Christian beliefs to keep from acting on the desire?

(I am guessing that with one so passionate about a husband and children, the love of family is enough, but spirituality doesn't hurt.)

"I personally following the Bible (KJV) as much as I possibly can.”
“I CAN choose to be gay, if I want to…”
“I've always been straight..."
“I remember having immoral thoughts (bisexual)..."
"...many people have desires to have affairs..."
“…a person can't help falling in love with more than one person."
“It's all about choice people."
“...as far as the Bible. Yes, I try to follow it as much as possible."

With spiritual beliefs, Leviticus Ch 18 tells has many things that we are not to do but we do anyhow. It is also in the old testament, I understand Christians are to look to the New Testament.

I would suggest you read: “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.” Chapter John 15:12 ; “These things I command you, that ye love one another.” John 18:17 ; and "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemest thyself; for thou that judgest does the same thing." Romans 2:1

I believe we can find a quote in the bible for or against all we want to support or deny; our conscious let's us know our true motivation. "

Raven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:19 PM:

" JR, that is because the story was about a web site showing the yes on 8 donors, not the no on 8 donors....as far as the addresses of abortion providers, those are not public record...the donor lists are. "

napagirl1970 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:21 PM:

" good gawd...who cares,,,is this is affecting your lifestyle? is this affecting your pocket book? I doubt it so let it be and let it be? That's what I have to say! I think we have a bunch of old farts with nothin better to do?
When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.

And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree,
There will be an answer, let it be.
For though they may be parted there is
Still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be.
Let it be, let it be. Yeah
There will be an answer, let it be.

And when the night is cloudy,
There is still a light that shines on me,
Shine on until tomorrow, let it be.
I wake up to the sound of music
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
There will be an answer, let it be.
Let it be, let it be,
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be "

shareathought wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:21 PM:

" Those of you who continue to blame the NVR for NOT creating a web site to name the "no on 8" contributors please look to the top of the page:

“Related
Prop H8 Wall Of Shame site
Database of all Yes and No on 8 contributors in entire U.S."

&

This is posted:

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:17 AM:
" A database with all contributors to either Yes or No on 8 from everywhere in the U.S. is available at sfgate.com. I don't have the resources available to build this extensive of a database, so here's how you can find it (Yes, I am violating my own comment guidelines about posting websites, but here goes)
http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?Search+Again= "

Then, post your own anti-website. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:22 PM:

" pharper wrote: "The right to marry belongs to all American citizens."
No, it doesn't. The U.S. Supreme Court has not said any such thing.

Also, your statement is wrong on face value since obviously brothers and sisters aren't allowed to marry each other. "

Paddy wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:23 PM:

" Nice. Being in the hospitality business and a previously good customer of 1800flowers I can fight back by throwing my business to FTD and teleflora, exclusively.

Rich, congratulations on the significant sale... I suggest everyone reach out to those who donated to the proposition that is a proponent for families and morality.

I probably wouldn't have bothered to look for those who contributed to supporting the moral meltdown of our society but I am spending significant time looking at the Napa, Yountville, AmCan, St. Helena names and changing how I do business. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:26 PM:

" alucawanza wrote: "God is not against homosexuality."

Sorry, that's not the God most of us believe in. Read Romans 1:26-27 and tell me what you think it says. "

entity wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:26 PM:

" I'd be proud to be on an anti-8 wall as a heterosexual male. Prop 8 supporters fill me with rage and disgust. GET YOUR CHURCH OUT OF THE STATE.

I refuse to live under your theocratic laws. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:34 PM:

" JR....the donations were a public record...the addresses of abortion providers are not, simple as that."

I wouldn't be so sure about that. It's amazing the amount of information you can find in public records, if you know where to look. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:47 PM:

" Raven, every time you trot out your defense that there are many places where women can walk topless (not true, and certainly not on our city streets), and that many public restrooms are unisex now (in smaller stores, yes, but not in the bigger stores). You're missing the whole point. It was only necessary for me to find one contrary instance, which then proves that the Edwards statement "Prop 8 is the first ever lawful discrimination" is false. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:52 PM:

" dmom wrote: "religion is interpretive, as is the Bible."

OK, so tell me dmom, how do *you* interpret Romans 1:26-27? "

Raven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:52 PM:

" JR, not I think you are being obtuse so I will repeat myself...there is a difference namely, the donor names are gathered and put out to be available to the public by public law........the private homes addresses, while being available to someone who searches hard enough, are not gathered together by public law for public consumption...is that clearer?

and you don't think the movement to restore the right to marry is going after an actual benefit...if there is none, then are you willing to have that right taken away from you?....and you haven't answered the question, how does gay marriage harm yours?

swrlygrl...do you see Christians subject to a vote to remove a basic civil right? "

Raven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:55 PM:

" JR, that is apples and oranges .... to equate going topless and using the restroom to losing the right to marry is a specious argument at best.....as for Edwards statement, show us another case where the majority voted to strip a right away from a minority? "

pharper wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:56 PM:

" JR, you keep telling me that I'm using tired arguments. They aren't tired. They're the truth, and you don't want to see it. I will not stop using these "tired" arguments until people start listening. If it isn't an issue--you keep saying that it's just a word--than why do you care if that right is afforded to gay couples?

And yes, the right to marry does belong to all American citizens--perhaps not by the Supreme Court, but by natural rights and civil liberties. Your scare tactics involving incest are irrelevant, again, but I've come to expect that. "

swrlygrl wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:17 PM:

" to shareathought~
What a way to use my quotes!

As I said, that was a desire I had in high school, and didn't act on it. As for the other quotes, I did not say I thought about them, nor have I acted on them. I merely mentioned them, because as humans those are common tendencies/desires/strongholds that people struggle with. As with alcoholism, drug abuse or even pornography. Just because I had a desire for something over 20 years ago, doesn't make it right or something I'm proud of.
My purpose in mentioning all of that, is that we all have a choice. Period. I chose to not experiment in something I thought at the time was appealing. Thank God I didn't. Just like drugs, if you try it, you might like. But it doesn't make it right to do! Satan has a way of enticing and making bad things look good. But he never shows you the end results!!! "

Pinky wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:34 PM:

" Why NVR single individuals and business of your community out?
If you are going to Post a List why only post a few names?
Interesting...Don't you think? This Wall of Shame is nothing but
discrimination. I say this is dangerous territory.......................
Do we still live in America... Land of the Free. Very Sad Day when an article of this sort in front page news. "

alucawanza wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:56 PM:

" John Richards: Here it is:
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

So there it is. I looked it up. Gibberish.

But the God I believe in, and I do enjoy freedom of religion, loves all of humanity. That includes those that he/she made homosexual.

So in 1691, one of the blackest periods in American History, 19 women were hanged as witches by a bunch of religious zealots who thought they were following the wisdom of the bible. They were as sure as you are. Hate crimes. We must learn the lessons of history. Religious zealotry is really the origin of evil.

In this country we have separation of church and state. The bible is not the basis of our Constitution. The bible does not make our law. Religious belief does not enter into law-making.

Whatever happened to, "Judge not lest ye be judged"?
The bible says you can stone your wife. It also says you can sell your daughter into slavery. Try those two under our laws.

The laws of the United States of America are not bible-based. We have a Constitution. This will be the deciding basis for law. So, John Richards, read the Constitution instead of the bible to understand the basis for law-making. "

Tjackson wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:14 AM:

" Oh by god Chris Edwards you certainly sparked controversy this time. Man I am stunned at the dialog. Almost 200 entries into the public debate, air time today on kvon devoted to your site and outrage pro and con. My observations are...

Wish you would run for office again as no one inNapa seems to be able to drive dialog and discussion like you do. Love you or hate you it does not matter you cancertainly find a way to inspire dialog. Yes you can.

Rich above if you are telling the truth and I doubt but if you closed a 65k sale due to Chris and his website you owe him a kiss and a commission for sparking a purchase. Great job Chris sounds like a side benefit to your website is you sparked the economy and forced a sale into a close. Wow you are a miracle worker and should be the mayor or better yet clean up theCopia mess.

Congratulations on your site and to the local media for focusing on this issue. Public debate is good and healthy. Chris spark a discussion each week maybe you can get people to city council meetings or involved in development and planning. Better yet manage the Napa Pipe project that will get them so riled up these ole timers would wish you were back on the marriage fight. Keep sparking dialog Chris at least you make people think and express themselves. I wish more public personalities could spark the passions that you do. To conclude thanks for all your charity work as well we forgot at least for a moment about the falling stock market and our loss of wealth. By the way happy holiday! "

savenapa wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:31 AM:

" Why do these people keeps spouting that rights have been taken away?? You never had the right. Ever. What a bunch of reality twisting spin doctors. Y'all ought to run for office. You'd fit right in. "

paul1 wrote on Dec 5, 2008 1:20 AM:

" This has been an incredibly devisive election. It is time for people to respect differing people's beliefs.

I believe the passage of Prop8 was due to misinformation via the church's mobilizing its power from the pulpit particularly in minority areas and the opponents failing to educate those same voters.

It sickens me that Prop8 passed but it bothers me worse that people cant respect a fair election and would rather intimidate others and destroy the democratic process.

Threatening and trying to intimidate people based on how they vote is simply wrong!!! "

Raven wrote on Dec 5, 2008 5:08 AM:

" paul, how does that list intimidate anyone....? This is a list of names available to all ... It seems to me that if I am backing something based upon my moral beliefs I would be proud to have people know this ... for example, I am and always have been against Prop 8 and am proud to let anyone know that.

and savenapa, as of May 15, the California state supreme court recognized that same sex couple had a right to marry. Quite simple. "

Rich wrote on Dec 5, 2008 7:06 AM:

" Tjackson, indeed I did and I owe him nothing.
His brand of hate is not to be rewarded. "

napagrammy wrote on Dec 5, 2008 7:12 AM:

" There is NO SHAME in doing what is right. Also, this is America and people are entitled to their opinions and their votes. Get over it. You lost. "

Hear Ye wrote on Dec 5, 2008 7:47 AM:

" After finally going to the site and reading the full list I think they should have just posted the Mormon Church member directory of Napa. It's like the who's who of the Christian cult. "

itsmylife wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:03 AM:

" Raven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:55 PM:

" JR, that is apples and oranges .... to equate going topless and using the restroom to losing the right to marry is a specious argument at best.....as for Edwards statement, show us another case where the majority voted to strip a right away from a minority? "

I hate to point this out but they never had the right to marry, after the last vote when california voters voted it down a couple of liberal judges decided that what they people wanted didn't matter and decided that gays could marry. It was never legal and now you guys forced it on the ballot trying to push your lifestyle on everyone else, a marriage is between a man and a women, not two men or two women, deal with it, you lost and instead of graciously trying to change peoples opinions you are using terrorist tactics to scare people into changing their minds. All you are accomplishing is to change the minds of people who actually supported you........... "

opiniagirl wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:24 AM:

" The businesses and people who contributed are not likely to be to upset that their names are listed...our family will make it a point to NOT EVEN look at the list of contributers from either side, what would be the point?

I will say though that shame is an individual emotion that nobody can attest to another...so the name of the "wall" is pretty silly, since whether or not people should be shamed depends on their own individual values.

Who said marriage is a right?? It seems like it would be..but with the law we all know that what seems like it "would be" often is not. marriage is NOT listed as a "right" specifically anywhere in the law.

However; even if it were a right..."Marriage" is legally understood to be a contract between a man and a woman, and homosexuals are NOT being denied the right to marry.

Homosexuals have THE SAME RIGHTS as all of us. They CAN GET married. Any homosexual can marry anyone of the opposite sex that they choose, just like the rest of us.

The ability to marry the same gender, your sibling, multiple partners, etc. has NEVER been a componant of "marriage" and therefore, is not able to be taken away! you can't lose something you never had, Gavin Newsom led these people down a road that was just plain mean...signing illegal "marriage certificates" and pretending that they were real...he knew the laws and ignored them...waving his arms and yelling whether you like it or not...well people didn't like it...prop 8 passed...whether you like it or not! "

eyeamme wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:34 AM:

" JR wrote "You're missing the point. When I contributed my $50 I was fully prepared to see my name on some public list. However, the Register chose to print only the pro-8 list, NOT the anti-8 list. It is *that* unfairness of coverage that I'm complaining about. "

So stop complaining and do something about it. Publish a list of all the No on 8 supporters. Because up until now, there isn't one! That is the reason for the Register choosing to print only the pro-8 list. It is not unfairness. It's the simple fact that there is no No on 8 supporter list. It's hard to publish something that isn't there. "

eyeamme wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:37 AM:

" swrlygrl,

why don't we see any Christian's strung up like we saw Matthew Shepherd? Tell me again how Christians are the recipients of hate just as much as any other minority. (Christianity, by the way, not a minority.) "

eyeamme wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:42 AM:

" JR wrote, "Sorry, that's not the God most of us believe in. Read Romans 1:26-27 and tell me what you think it says. "

It doesn't matter what god "most" of you believe in. That's the whole point of freedom of religion. Not everyone has to follow the same ridiculous rules and ideals your storybook lays down. For me, the book of Romans hold no symbolic meaning at all. None of the bible does. Because I believe there to be no god. And that is ok! So, I feel that homosexuality is perfectly ok because there is no reason it should not. "

Winewoman wrote on Dec 5, 2008 10:39 AM:

" And I was worried about the growing gang and violence activity in this town - I should be worried about you religious zealots.

I support your cause, Chris. Keep going. I'm not sure this was the best method for getting attention for the cause. But, I know you - and you're nothing if you aren't compelling and contoversial. "

punkymane wrote on Dec 5, 2008 11:12 AM:

" YES!!!!ON Prop 8.!!!!! "

Maven wrote on Dec 5, 2008 11:15 AM:

" I have no doubt the list will motivate many people.

If you are "Yes on 8" and you don't particularly care bout the businesses you are currently doing business with, then by all means switch to one of these. The net effect on the economy is zero, although it may adversely affect those you've decided to abandon.

I have heard people say they don't like a business because they suspect the owner is gay or the employees are gay. I also have dealt with people who don't want to go to a business because the owner is a different race or religion. They have the freedom not to deal with people who are different from them, if they wish. And the freedom not to deal with people who disagree with you about this issue.

The "No on 8" people are free to likewise change their patronage. Most of them probably already know which businesses in Napa are "gay friendly" and which are not. However, the list might provide additional information on who would be supportive of their friends and families and who would not.

A group of teenagers I see regularly at my home have decided they do not want a particular teacher on the list. I don't know that this is the best way to select a teacher, but there are plenty of teachers and class options available to them and kids should have that choice. Other kids may want a teacher who is more likely to be anti-gay.

If both sides use these lists, in the end it comes down to who has the most money and who is the most willing to change their lives based on this single issue. "

swrlygrl wrote on Dec 5, 2008 11:19 AM:

" To opiniagirl~
That was very well said! "

Maven wrote on Dec 5, 2008 11:19 AM:

" Itsmylife –

Liberal judges? LOL! They were appointed by REPUBLICANS.

And, yes, it was LEGAL for same-sex couples to marry for a while in California.

The Proposition was already in the process BEFORE the court decision, thanks to the "Yes on 8" folks.

It doesn't help your argument to be ignorant of facts.

By the way - if you want to call public listing of donors (which is legal) "terrorist" tactics, you might want to talk to your other "Yes on 8" folks who call it a "Wall of Pride" and are heralding it as a help to their business decisions. Either it's a terrible thing or a good thing. Which is it?

Opiniagirl –

SCOTUS declared marriage a civil right.

Do you know your argument was used to defend the bans on interracial marriage? A black man had the SAME rights as a white man – to marry someone of his OWN race. No discrimination right? Because everyone has the "same" right?

But, yes, gays can marry opposite sex partners. Ted Haggard; Larry Craig; Bob Allen; Jim McGreevey; Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper (founders of Exodus, the ex-gay organization) who left their wives for each other.

Now, the CFO of the conservative anti-gay Cincinnati Christian University, Robert Williams (just busted fondling the genitals of a male prostitute).

We see how well that works out….. ;-) "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Dec 5, 2008 11:26 AM:

" eyeamme:
Beyond the top contributors, the Napa Valley Register published no such list. There is a link to the Web site listing the Yes contributors AND there is a link to find every contributor on the Yes and the No sides for the entire country.
You have access to every contributor on both sides. "

alucawanza wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:10 PM:

" Napagrammy: It's not over yet. No one has won anything yet. We'll see what the courts do. Action began before the election and is in the works as we write. It's too important.

Remember: when you lose one right it's so easy to let go of others until you're living in a nation where some people have to wear armbands or symbols to identify who they are, businesses are confiscated because the ones who are different are running them, camps must be set up to hold those who are different.....you get the drift??
That's why every right must be protected no matter how insignificant it may seem to you. Our Republic is fragile. Look at the rights that were lost during the last eight years. You don't even have privacy on your phone. You could be held without legal counsel. Guard due process.... Guard everyone's rights. They are your rights. They are your children's rights. They are not determined by the bible. They are determined by our Constitution and are inalienable....or so we thought. "

winemd wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:18 PM:

" There is no reason to publish a no on 8 supporter list, becuase someone can easily find that information if they want. I would be happy if a pro gay marriage published a list of their supporters and encouraged like-minded individuals to seek out those businesses (or pro traditional marriage). To me, that is a positive contribution to helping people realize that good people support gay marriage and some who don't support gay marriage might realize that they are not bad people. Instead this website says that those who disagree should be ashamed. This does not seem to me to be a good way to "win friends and influence people" who disagree into looking at your position at all positively - quite the reverse. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:48 PM:

" Maven wrote: "SCOTUS declared marriage a civil right." That's taken totally out of context, and you know it.
SCOTUS was clearly speaking about the traditional man/woman marriage when it stated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival", a clear reference to procreation.
(Loving v. Virginia, 1967) "

John Richards wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:53 PM:

" Maven wrote: "Liberal judges? LOL! They were appointed by REPUBLICANS."
Being appointed by Republicans does not preclude being liberal. Our governor is a nominally a Republican, but he often sides with liberals, as he did on the Prop 8 issue. "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:56 PM:

" Are Mormons more tolerant than blacks...???

Apparently... The radical NO on 8 folks are striking out against Mormon owned businesses, but have the common sense to stay away from black churches... After all, more then 70% of blacks in California voted YES on Prop 8...

Radical gay Prop 8 losers know better than to mess around with the wrong crowd... Blacks wouldn't put up with the harassment that the gays are dishing out toward the Mormons...

Those of us in the middle are now being forced hard right due to the obnoxious behavior of the NO crowd... "

John Richards wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:57 PM:

" opiniagirl wrote: "Who said marriage is a right??"
The U.S. Supreme Court declared marriage between a man and a woman a right, but it has not done so for same-sex 'marriage'. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 5, 2008 1:03 PM:

" eyamme wrote: "For me, the book of Romans hold no symbolic meaning at all. None of the bible does."
That's your privilege to believe that, but I was merely pointing out that the vast majority of Americans who identify themselves with Christianity do care what it says in the Bible. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 5, 2008 1:13 PM:

" Raven wrote: "as of May 15, the California state supreme court recognized that same sex couple had a right to marry."
A temporary although grave mistake by a narrow 4-3 majority. I'm sure they will acknowledge that mistake when hey uphold the constitutionality of Prop 8. Based on a current head count by insiders, there is likely to be at least a 4-3 majority for upholding Prop 8. "

suze wrote on Dec 5, 2008 1:26 PM:

" Jeez - enough already on the Prop 8!I have read a lot of the opinions on these pages and there is no arguing through it. The basic fact is you will never be able to legislate acceptance of homosexuality. Some people, for a variety reasons will never accept it as a 'normal' part of society. The voting swing on Prop 8 proved that. The more that gays jump up and down and scream, the worse it will be for them. Yes some things are unjust, this is also one of them, but it is a bit of the old Zen thing, the more you try to aggressively grasp something, the more elusive it gets. I think gay pride parades and the ilk are a big mistake. Basically, this issue is about sexual behaviour. Why do they have to shout so loud about their sexual behaviour? No one else does. I am not saying go back into the closet, but all this flamboyant 'coming out' is too forceful for a delicate issue. Most of us know some 'gay' people, and we - the so called 'normal' people know that they are usually a delight, with more than average talents. I believe they will eventually eventually win acceptance with a more moderate approach. This is not something that can be forced. People have the will and the right to refuse to accept it, unjust or not and they have. I feel very sad for so many disappointed people, but it could be worse, we do have Civil Unions. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 5, 2008 1:27 PM:

" Raven wrote: "what bothers me, two cents, is imposing your religion upon others who do not practice that faith."

It has nothing to do with me imposing my religion on you. It has to do with the fact that the majority gets to decide what is moral and what is not moral. The fact that some of us get our moral compass from our religious beliefs is really not pertinent here. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 5, 2008 1:33 PM:

" eyeamme wrote: "Your religion does not dictate how everyone is to live."

You're right, it doesn't. But everyone gets their moral compass from a composite multitude of sources and influences, and for me one of those influences is my religion. Like it or not, the majority gets to decide what is moral and what is not moral when it comes to laws. "

CaliforniaNative wrote on Dec 5, 2008 1:46 PM:

" eyeamme said lets string up Christians like Mathew Sheppard. If you know history at all you will see that Christians HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED THOUGHOUT HISTORY and STILL ARE TODAY. What happened to Mathew Sheppard was horrible and should never happen to anyone, gay or otherwise. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 5, 2008 1:47 PM:

" Raven wrote "show us another case where the majority voted to strip a right away from a minority."

OK, I'll give you a silly example, but it proves the point: Prop 2 stripped away the right of chicken farmers (a minority) to raise chickens the way they saw fit. "

Maven wrote on Dec 5, 2008 1:48 PM:

" John Richards –

Opiniagirl asked "Who said marriage is a right?" I answered correctly that SCOTUS declared it a right. I made no mention of any kind of marriage because the ruling made no mention of any kind of marriage. You are free to ASSUME whatever you'd like, but don't ADD to historical record. We're just talking about the institution of marriage, one that has legally changed over the years.

Also, the majority do not get to decide what is "moral" and "not moral." The MAJORITY believed that it was immoral for the races to mix. They tried, desperately, to legislate against it. California banned interracial marriages and a very large MAJORITY approved those bans.

Then "activist judges" (and, coincidentally by the SAME NARROW 4-3 margin) overturned the state's ban on interracial marriage. It should be noted the court's most conservative member wrote the dissenting opinion, citing history, tradition and "morality."

It was this decision that the current court cited as a precedent in the same-sex marriage case.

I have little doubt that back then, well meaning and kind-hearted people who considered themselves good Christians strongly felt it was immoral for people of different races to marry. I try to view them with compassion and realize they were products of their time.

I try to do the same with people who now are opposed to same-sex marriage. "

srnitnw wrote on Dec 5, 2008 1:50 PM:

" For all of you that are complaining about a one-sided list of supporters, you can go to the LA Times website, title: the gay-marriage battle: follow the donors, and you can do a search by name or location for the donors from either side of the issue. To put this person down simply because he has his own website with these names is just plain ridiculous. I can't believe the number of people who seem to be offended by this. I'm thinking of producing a gay couples 10-year calendar that would be sent to everyone, complimentarily, just so you guys have something truly awful to complain about - enter the shoving it down my throat crowd. What do you think? "

John Richards wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:02 PM:

" pharper wrote: "the right to marry does belong to all American citizens--perhaps not by the Supreme Court, but by natural rights and civil liberties."

Sorry, but the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court define what those natural rights and civil liberties are.

"Your scare tactics involving incest are irrelevant, again, but I've come to expect that. "
Read again what I said. I did not use incest as a scare tactic. I merely used it to disprove the blanket statement "All Americans have a right to marry". "

breezee wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:17 PM:

" After reading the article in the NVR, I checked the SFgate archives regarding same-sex marriage. I found that outspoken critics of same-sex marriage exist in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community - this from an SF Chron article. Mr. Edwards is trying to color all supporters of Prop. 8 as haters (h8rs), which is not true. The prop was an effort to uphold the historic meaning of "marriage". "

Raven wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:28 PM:

" JR, again, there is no inherent right as to how you raise chickens....so citing Prop 2 is just plain silly... and nothing but another specious argument ... and btw, all americans do have a right to marry, the question here is the right to marry the legal consenting adult of there choice which the state supreme court said on May 15 was a right and prop 8 stripped away. And the majority only gets to vote on what is before them on the ballot box, not what is moral,that is an individual choice. (oh, and yes, if you cite the bible or your faith as as one of the reasons you voted for Prop 8, then you are voting to impose your religion on the rest of us.

suze, so it is the openness about homosexuality that bothers you, you would be okay if they just are quiet and wait for the 'normal' folks to let them marry?

and show us the last time a ballot box was used to strip a right away from Christians, California native...

Dwayne, who are the non-radical prop 8 losers?...the same folks as the radical prop 4 losers (three times on the ballot, three times lost) should they stop trying?

and itsmylife, one last point, why should anyone be gracious when they have had a basic civil right stripped away from them, what rights of yours are you willing to have people vote on? "

plokij wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:32 PM:

" As of now I am canceling my subscription to the Napa Register for printing this filth. Whether or not I voted for or against Prop 8 is of no matter.

Since when does Chris Edwards have the right to see who voted against his Gay Marriage? To expose people the way this has done is so utterly and despicably childish and all credibility Chris Edwards has or had should be lost on this.

Isn't there a reason there are curtains or partitions at voting booths? For PRIVACY?

This is a ridiculous witch-hunt and is being shamelessly perpetuated by the NVR for numbers

This story has brought the Register down to a tabloid, a filth-rag, although it has brought attention, which is all they want, unfortuantely.

I could go on and on about how disgusted I am with the NVR and Chris Edwards but what's the point?

Hey Chris, is there a reason you don't list any contact information on your HATEwebsite? OF course there is... "

Hear Ye wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:37 PM:

" Dwayne-

It's about the money that the Mormons poured into the YES campaign. The black churches weren't even a drop in the bucket compared to the Mormons when it came to the almighty dollars.

It also seems to do with the fact that another state (Utah) had so much influence on the election.

I agree they aren't the only ones to blame as when it comes down to it it's the individual votes that count but I don't think it's fair to say that the "radical gay prop 8 losers" are somehow scared of black people. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:39 PM:

" Maven wrote 'the ruling made no mention of any kind of marriage. You are free to ASSUME whatever you'd like, but don't ADD to historical record."

I quoted verbatim from the record. Tell me, what *you* think "fundamental to our very existence and survival" refers to??? "

John Richards wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:48 PM:

" Maven wrote: "I have little doubt that back then, well meaning and kind-hearted people who considered themselves good Christians strongly felt it was immoral for people of different races to marry."
Don't bring Christianity into it because nowhere in he Bible does it forbid interracial marriage. In fact, it has many examples of interracial marriages that were apparently blessed by God, such as he story of Ruth (the Moabite) and Boaz (the Jew). "

John Richards wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:57 PM:

" When I contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign, I was asked to put a bumper sticker on my car but I declined. Although I believe that most people are good citizens, there are always a few hotheads who would think nothing of vandalizing a car sporting a bumper sticker they don't like. The same goes for the Edwards Wall of Shame. Most people would not misuse that information, but for a few hotheads it is all the motivation they need to vandalize property of those named on the list. Those who hand matches to irresponsible kids are responsible for the outcome. "

ProudLady wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:59 PM:

" As someone who voted No on 8, I have to agree that the list is almost crossing a line. This topic has such strong emotions tied to it, that a list like this is asking for trouble (be it directed at the list itself, or encouraging harassment, which I think this does). Am I interested in who in my community voted yes? Sure. Was I motivated before this to find out on my own? No.

In regards to us "babies" having a tantrum, the vote was so close, I think we're allowed to be angry. And besides, the Parental Notification for Minors and abortions has been on the four different times. FOUR TIMES!!! Who won't take no for an answer?

I think that one of the problems here is that people feel so protected behind their identities, and the fact that there is no physical threat to them, that people end up saying really sarcastic things to provoke people. I wish people would understand that this doesn't make me want to take your argument seriously. Personally, I like having discussions with people who's views are different than mine, but actual conversations, not just spewing crap. "

Winewoman wrote on Dec 5, 2008 3:31 PM:

" Is anyone listening to John Richards any more? It's like blah, blah, blah. Enough with the excessive posts. "

itsmylife wrote on Dec 5, 2008 3:52 PM:

" Raven wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:28 PM:

Again you can say what ever you want same sex marriage was never a "right" it was never legal, hence it getting overturned when some judges decided they did not care what the majority of american citizens wanted. It has been voted down twice, you want me to give up one of my rights? Well let me see I am not gay, so if I choose to get married I could do so, of course I am anti-marriage, but still believe it is between a man and a women, you don't like it to bad, why should I have to give up any of my so called "rights" when you have not had to??? California has spoken on the matter twice, stop acting like a terrorist and get on with your life. Unless you want to have a sex change operation, then you could get married, oh but wait darn it then you wouldn't be gay anymore would you......... "

itsmylife wrote on Dec 5, 2008 3:55 PM:

" Maven wrote on Dec 5, 2008 11:19 AM:

" Itsmylife –

Liberal judges? LOL! They were appointed by REPUBLICANS

Shows what you know, my grandmother is a republican but also a liberal, marriage was never one of your civil rights, something that the american people voted on, some whatever judges, decided they did not care what the people voted on, decided it was ok, sorry majority counts, I voted against health benefits for illiegal immigrants you want to whine about that to???? "

grape wrote on Dec 5, 2008 4:05 PM:

" I agree with you Suze.

More straight people would be sympathetic to gays if the large majority of them weren't so loud about the sexual nature of their preference. "

Maven wrote on Dec 5, 2008 4:15 PM:

" John RIchards –

Then we agree. I said that SCOTUS said that marriage was a civil right. I was correct. :-)

As for the comparison to interracial marriage, people used to believe (and some still do) that the Bible forbid the mixing of races. That you now believe differently is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that, at one time, the MAJORITY of Californians, including the MAJORITY of Christians, disagreed with you.

Right now, you are in the majority. I have little doubt that the majority back then felt every bit as strongly in the "rightness" of their position as you do.

Marriage neither requires nor provides reproduction. More than a third of the children in the US are born to unwed mothers.

Although I am a parent (with conception within marriage), I do not elevate an act that rapists and molesters and prostitutes and total strangers can do to something "special." A true parent can tell you that it is the raising and nurturing of children (yes, even adopted children) is what really contributes to society's survival and existence.

If no one married, there would still be children. But if no one formed families, we might cease to exist. Get your priorities straight – it's not the breeding that is so critical. It's all the hard work afterward, by both biological and adoptive parents, that really matters. "

Maven wrote on Dec 5, 2008 4:16 PM:

" If you sign a petition in this state, your name is PUBLIC RECORD. It's there on the form you sign. The same is true if you contribute to a political cause. If you sent money to a political campaign, your NAME and ADDRESS are public record and ANYONE can see them.

There are lists on the internet of all campaign contributions from Napa going back many years. Google and you'll see them.

Lists for and against Proposition 8 are all over the internet, including "blacklists" from both sides. Chris Edwards chose to copy from a list that didn't include addresses or employers, but many list keepers have done more research and provided far more information.

You are NOT guaranteed any privacy if you sign petitions or make political contributions. If anyone told you that you would have privacy, you have a right to bring a legal suit against them.

It appears that some people who contributed to "Yes on 8" were not properly informed that their names would become public record. They might be able to sue the people who failed to properly inform them, but that would be for an attorney to say. "

Maven wrote on Dec 5, 2008 4:21 PM:

" Itsmylife –

Marriage is a right. SCOTUS says so. Same-sex marriage was legal in California. You can deny reality, but it doesn't make you appear rational. Just….confused.

As to the judges, you might want to check out their voting records. They are not known for being liberal.

As for gays not being gay if they married an opposite sex partner….Jim McGreevey, Ted Haggard, Bob Allen, Robert Williams, the founders of Exodus….right. They're not gay. They just have sex with other men because they are heterosexual and that's what heterosexual men like to do in your world?

Are you really that confused?

By the way, don't ASSUME that I'm gay. I'm actually a heterosexual, a Christian and a leader in a mainstream denomination. I used to be anti-gay (at least theologically) until I studied the issue and realized that the church was treating gay people just as it had treated black people and women at one time. "

napapatriot wrote on Dec 5, 2008 5:11 PM:

" grape wrote on Dec 5, 2008 4:05 PM:

"More straight people would be sympathetic to gays if the large majority of them weren't so loud about the sexual nature of their preference. "

Give me a break I cannot go out to a movie, a play or even a bar without a hetro kissing and displaying their sexuality in front of me every time. Take it to the closet it time for a gay ole time. "

ProudLady wrote on Dec 5, 2008 6:56 PM:

" From Wikipedia - The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

So, could we say that it's a law that only men and women can marry? Marriage is a lable. It confers that two people have made a contract to be together. BUT it's that fact that we have decided that only certain people can enter into this contract. I'm not saying that your church has to recognize the marriage. That's the whole thing about religions, it's belief system. I just think that if two people want to attach this lable to their relationship, they should have that right.
I don't understand why letting two people of the same sex is a threat to heterosexual mariage, when 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. It sounds like us heterosexual's already have a problem with marriage... "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 5, 2008 7:40 PM:

" Perversion is a long ways from equal protection...

There are a lot of nut cases out there... Charles Manson still gets about one marriage proposal a week... Is that a "choice", or is it genetic...???

Get real..... "

pharper wrote on Dec 5, 2008 7:59 PM:

" Well, Dwayne, the difference there is that Charles Manson killed people. Being gay never killed anyone.

I'd say looking down on people based on something an ancient storybook says is what's perverse.

Love (in the context of consenting adult relationships, since I'll be attacked if I don't stipulate) is never perverse. "

eyeamme wrote on Dec 5, 2008 8:23 PM:

" wow wow wow! CaliforniaNative, please quote my comment correctly. I never said "lets string up Christians like Matthew Shepherd." If you actually were to quote me correctly, I said, "Why don't we see Christians strung up like Matthew Shepherd." And yes, in the past Christians were prosecuted. But not in this country at the same time Gays are experiencing this hatred. Get your info right and do not misquote people. "

napagrrl wrote on Dec 5, 2008 8:42 PM:

" Charles Manson killed LOTS of people. That whole "bible thing" what a ... well, let's just say it's "not current" it's a thing of fiction/almost-maybe-it-happened-a-long-time-ago kind of thing. Who REALLY follows that? Um, pretty much no one.... "

alucawanza wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:23 PM:

" John Richards:
This is a personal question for you. Why are you spending so much of your time on this? Why is it so important to you who can marry? Why are you so concerned with gay marriage. How will it hurt you if gay marriage becomes the norm? I'm surprised by your vehemence and energy.
Gay people just want the right to get married. They want to raise families and live the American dream. They want the same rights that everyone else has. How does that hurt you?
Please don't throw religion at me. Government is separate from that. Please don't throw some cockeyed ideas about deviance at me. Consenting adults are not your or my problem or businesss. Please don't talk to me about sex abuse. That's not what this is about. This is about marriage, nuptial partnership, mutual love, lifelong vows, pledges to honor, to be faithful. This is about a lifelong commitment to another person. How does this hurt you? How can this be wrong......legally?
I already read the bible quote. I printed it here. It means nothing because our laws are not based on bible readings. The Constitution will show us the way. This is not over. This country is too honorable. Our courts will determine the validity of prop. 8. That is as it should be.
Do you hate gay people? Do you want them to be treated as second class citizens? What's up with your donating money to help further a dishonorable cause. Prop. 8 was misunderstood by so many. Perhaps you'll get another chance to do the right thing. "

opiniagirl wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:28 PM:

" The Matthew Shephard incident was, at least initially, intented to be a robbery, that became something much worse.

Yet the homosexual community remains deathly silent about the recent premeditated attack of heterosexual, Jason Shephard, by a homosexual predator...! "

pharper wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:37 PM:

" There are good people and bad people; evil does not know gender or sexuality, opiniagirl. The difference between the two issues is that Matthew Shepherd was targeted for being gay--read the confession of one of his murderers. He was tortured, beaten, and left to die because of his sexuality, not because of anything else, and that is a hate crime.

Jason Shephard's death, while tragic, had nothing to do with his sexuality. He was not specifically targeted for being heterosexual. He was killed for refusing the sexual advances of another man. If he had been gay, but still rejected the advances, I am sure his murderer would have killed him just the same. "

pharper wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:49 PM:

" Oops, I've spelled Matthew Shepard's name wrong. My apologies; I'm never sure how to spell Shepard, since there are so many ways to spell it when it comes to the name. "

kdbk wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:50 PM:

" I think that's perfectly fine. Let the gay marriage supporters boycott businesses owned by those they oppose and also let the opposite occur. We'll see who's "pocketbooks" end up worse off.

I'm most confident that those on record who opposed gay marriage in the last election will see an increase in their business (adjusted for the current economic downturn, of course) and the other side will see either a decrease or perhaps just status-quo. But they will certainly not get what they thought they would out of this. In fact, their cause could likely lose support. This past election might have indeed been the last-best hope for the gay marriage advocates. Self-destruction is inevitable when a group gets too radical. "

opiniagirl wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:58 PM:

" Google:

The tragic story
of Jesse Dirkhising

Where is the outrage? "

opiniagirl wrote on Dec 5, 2008 10:08 PM:

" So it's a hate crime for heterosexuals to kill a gay man while robbing him, but not a hate crime for homosexuals to try to rape and ultimatly kill a man because he was heterosexual and refused advances. because jason was NOT GAY his attacker prepared with date rape drugs...not a hate crime???

Matthews' killers both claimed that it was a robbery gone wrong; turned into something entirely different to incite "hate crime" laws.

We DO NOT know for sure that homosexuality is not just a perversion that can lead to worse perversion.

Nobody REALLY knows anything about anyone, homosexual or heterosexual...but if there is even the tiniest possibility then we owe it to our children to protect them. "

pharper wrote on Dec 5, 2008 10:37 PM:

" No, Matthew Shepard's killers admitted exactly what they did--they wanted to rob a gay man. Their girlfriends both testified to such. They pretended to be gay--and confessed to it--and once they had Matthew, they did what they did to him.

You're confusing crimes committed against heterosexuals with hate crimes. A hate crime is a "criminal act motivated by prejudice," according to the PRA. Just because a crime is committed by someone of one sexuality against someone of another sexuality does not mean the victim was targeted for being of a different sexuality. That's the big difference. Jesse Dirkhising was not targeted for being heterosexual. He was targeted because the men were pedophiles, NOT homosexuals. There's a big huge difference between the two.

Go ahead and pull out those stories about the "scary homosexuals," because you'll only find a few. That's like presenting cases like Ted Bundy's and Jack the Ripper as proof of the fact that men as a gender are all dangerous and all have the potential to kill other people in cold blood, when it simply isn't true. Just as most heterosexuals are not murderers, crazy, or cruel, most homosexuals are not.

What you seem to be forgetting is that homosexuals are not an entirely different species. They are just people, with a different variation of sexuality that harms no one, least of all the heterosexual community. Homosexuality itself does not lead to "perversion." Just as there are those few heterosexuals with the desire to harm others, there are those few homosexuals. It has nothing to do with sexuality; it has to do with the nature of humankind, and the occasional bent of an individual person to do something or feel something.

Don’t twist the facts. "

Raven wrote on Dec 5, 2008 11:26 PM:

" Regarding Jesse, that was a crime committed upon a minor by two pedophiles, not because jesse was heterosexual, but because he was a child. Matthew Shephard was committed by men intent on committing the crime because Matthew was gay, which they admitted.

Both are tragic. "

shareathought wrote on Dec 6, 2008 12:14 AM:

" I believe we can always find quotes in the bible to support our personal opinions or to negate another's viewpoint; only our conscious tells us our true motivation.

swrlygrl~ re-reading, my post, I may owe you an apology. I'm sorry if you took the quotes as a personal attack. Maybe, I could've written differently.
You’re obviously a thinking person yet there's continuity to the writing that made me wonder if there were a struggle with sexuality (I believe no one should be ashamed of who they are, God made us).
Yet, another quote tickled my brain one, I finally remembered: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - William Shakespeare (Hamlet)

I believe most of us are able to tell right and wrong from the age of seven or eight, we have some confusion during puberty (imbalanced hormones), and when we are first out on our own (we move from our parents guardianship).
Later, we struggle with all sorts of things daily, little things (buying a cup of coffee vs a book for our child, talking to the neighbor rather then playing with our child), as well as big things.
I do not believe that having “immoral thoughts” is necessarily wrong but rather a part of the filtering process. God expects that we do our best.

What if you were made different (perhaps shorter, taller or, as with the case at hand, had a different hormonal make-up), but, in knowing who you are, you still had to struggle because of what others wanted you to be?

Homosexuals have been “in hiding” for 100s of years, otherwise, you’d be accustomed to all of God’s children and not so uncomfortable that you believed it was your responsibility to intervene on God’s behalf. "

shareathought wrote on Dec 6, 2008 12:23 AM:

" There is another quote attributed to Shakespeare “to thine own self be true”. If God had made you as differently as GLBT people were made, do you really believe God would expect you to either force yourself into a relationship that felt wrong or for you to spend a life alone (remember, you only get one life; granted some may be more spiritually evolved and could choose celibacy…)? Your sexuality is part of your whole being.

As others have asked, why would a person “choose a lifestyle” that would be contrary to the social norm, knowing it would be a hard road, one that would be filled with hate, insults and discrimination?

Have you ever really considered what it must be like if you felt different on the inside, then, the person others observed you to be from the outside?

What if it felt morally wrong for you (as a wife), to have sex with a man; what if your husband preferred to spend his nights with his best male friend?

What if you always felt torn until you found a like-partner who became your family?

How would you respond to those who fought to prevent you from being a family? "

John Richards wrote on Dec 6, 2008 12:32 AM:

" Winewoman, you have special permission to skip over my posts. :-) "

John Richards wrote on Dec 6, 2008 12:42 AM:

" alucawanza wrote: "The laws of the United States of America are not bible-based."

Not directly. But Bible-believing voters have a lot of clout with Congress and other lawmakers. Their influence is so great that I don't believe it is possible for a non-Christian to become president of this country. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 6, 2008 1:00 AM:

" Maven wrote: "Marriage neither requires nor provides reproduction."

What is in the realm of possibility is not the same thing as what is proper or optimum.
I believe that SCOTUS will continue to view heterosexual marriage as a cornerstone of what our society is built on, and as such, deserving of special consideration over and above same-sex unions. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 6, 2008 1:18 AM:

" Maven wrote: " John Richards – Then we agree. I said that SCOTUS said that marriage was a civil right. I was correct."

No I don't agree with your interpretation. You are taking the SCOTUS statement completely out of context. The ruling pertained to interracial marriage, a black woman and a white man. Most analysts agree that the case has no bearing on same-sex marriage, especially so when that same court a few years later, refused to overturn a Minnesota law limiting marriage to opposite sex couples (Baker v. Nelson). "

Raven wrote on Dec 6, 2008 7:28 AM:

" so again you are saying it is not proper for people to marry who cannot reproduce or will not reproduce JR ... "

kellyness wrote on Dec 6, 2008 11:59 AM:

" I have a lot of respect for anyone on the list, and anyone who backs up their personal beliefs ! Whether they are similar to mine, or not. What do they expect to accomplish by publishing that list ? Seems foolish to me. I hope us "H8ers" don't post a "Wall of Shame" ...Absolutely ridiculous... Aren't most of us past the drama and pettyness of high school ? "

ReneeFannin wrote on Dec 6, 2008 12:08 PM:

" Why is it that people think it is ok to vote in a way that eliminated a basic civil right for an entire group of people and not let those very people know that you took that right away so that we know where not to spend our money?
You would like us and everyone else to think that this was just another ballot issue where we can "agree to disagree". It was not. It was an constitutional revision disguised as an ammendment that took away many children's rights to have married parents. It took away many parents rights to see their gay children marry. It took away the right of many people to have equality. It took away progress towards every Californian's
right to live in a world where our gay teenagers no longer shoot themselves in the head because they fear societal reaction to who they know that they are. It was a huge step backwards in an attempt to create a world full of kindness and goodwill to all people. It has now divided neighborhoods, friends and colleagues. The backers of Prop 8 did this. Gay people having the right to marry was not affecting them. There has been no logical explanation posed as to how it would do so. Only "tradition" and misinformed biblical reference have been offered. Thank you for publishing this information. If the people who donated to this hateful legislation didn't want anyone to know, they shouldn't have donated. "

prunepicker wrote on Dec 6, 2008 3:22 PM:

" don't bother arguing with John Richards. Its pretty obvious he doe'snt like gays and reading his posts on other news its clear he doesnt like dogs either. "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 6, 2008 3:50 PM:

" Your "basic civil right" stuff is nonsense...

No one has the "right" to perverted behavior, and it's not about "the chillldren" or "love", it's about perverted sexual behavior, which is what they choose to do...

I don't care what they do, just don't try to call it "normal" in the process...

Th reference to Charles Manson was not about killing, but about how so many people are attracted to his perverted way of thinking... OJ already has female nut cases writing love letters to him in the Clark County jail... When you support perversion of any kind, something is very wrong... "

Raven wrote on Dec 6, 2008 5:17 PM:

" Dwayne, just what is perverted....the stripping away of a right?...

Those sexual behaviors you seem to detest so much are also practiced in one form or another by the majority of the world according to every study you can find on sexual behavior...but that is beside the point, the behaviors are legal and no justification for denying people a right, even a right you seem bound and determined to deny even exists.

and the Charles Manson analogy?....puhleeze, that is such a reach it is almost laughable. "

alucawanza wrote on Dec 6, 2008 5:42 PM:

" Sorry Dwayne..
It is normal. Perverted is in the eye of the beholder. If you think it is perverted, don't do it.
You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that the actions of consenting adults is not my business. The actions of consenting adults is normal. They are not breaking a law. This is a legal matter.
Charles Manson and OJ are psychopaths. Those attracted to them have nothing to do with the issues being discussed here. Supporting gay marriage is not supporting perversion. What consenting gay people do in their bedrooms is not perversion. Let me repeat...Consenting adults, following their natural inclinations, are not perverse.
Don't confuse my comments with anything else but consenting adults. Sexual behavior between consenting adults is not perverse. The emphasis is on consenting. If you don't like it, don't do it. No one is trying to make you do something you don't want to do in the bedroom, I hope.
Perversion has nothing to do with Prop. 8. Those who view it that way are missing the point. This is about discrimination and legalilty.
John Richards: Thank you. But check out the Christian morals of all our elected officials. How many have cheated on their wives, solicited gay sex in bathrooms, and had mistresses? The Christian beliefs held by our elected officials is rather superficial. They only exhibit it when it suits their "image". Our own governor is well-known as the gropenator! "

kck wrote on Dec 7, 2008 6:56 AM:

" Can I get my name on also. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 7, 2008 9:51 AM:

" Manson, O.J., the hillside strangler, everyone in prison, is allowed to get married, while the gay law enforcement officers, lawyers, judges, and guards who helped put and keep them there can not. How fair is that?
Being gay is normal for a minority of the population. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. (MLK) "

steph wrote on Dec 7, 2008 1:00 PM:

" Thank you to those of you here who show a great deal of compassion toward our homosexual friends and family members. You've written eloquently and thoughtfully. It is my hope that your words will resonate with some, if not all, of the readers here, especially if they should find that a child or grandchild, brother or sister is gay and needs support.
You are to be commended for standing up for the rights of the underrepresented minority. "

Enlightened1 wrote on Dec 7, 2008 2:14 PM:

" Here Here! I proudly voted NO- cast my vote and had it Fed-Ex'd from overseas. Thank you the listing Mr. Edwards; it is important for me to know who has taken away my civil rights. "

kdbk wrote on Dec 7, 2008 10:04 PM:

" Don't the gay marriage supporters realize that the more radical they become, the less likely they will find success in their movement? Perhaps they don't care. Or maybe they just want to push things as far as they can while not having thought much about the consequences.

Here's hoping that they continue to increase the radical nature of their movement. That's the surest way they will find failure.

Go ahead, get mad, get radical, post our names up on the wall of shame, call us all hateful bigots, disrupt our church services, mock our belief in traditional marriage. See where it gets you. "

RDM1 wrote on Dec 8, 2008 7:50 AM:

" Our current understanding of biology suggests that all things biological serve one original design criterion (purpose). They either contribute to survival and reproduction, or they don’t. Whatever manages to contribute, is favored by natural selection. Whatever doesn’t contribute, is selected against. Of course, selection ‘for and against’ varies in intensity according to the fit between the species and the environment. Of the three possible gender combinations (male-male, female-female, female-male) only one is likely, of it’s very nature, to lead to reproduction. Unfortunately, there are draw backs to reproducing. Initial stages are dangerous to the life of the female. Later stages involve massive commitments of attention and energy. The whole process takes years. Furthermore, once entered into, this commitment cannot be shirked without risking severe sanctions from the community. If the three possible combinations (female-female, male-male, female-male) were equally endorsed by the community, no rational being would choose the ‘hetero’ option. The community, in an effort to insure its own survival, attempts to compensate for these built-in drawbacks to the ‘hetero’ option, by offering a suite of privileges for those willing to take on its burdens. "

Raven wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:08 AM:

" kdbk, I doubt that anything, radical or not, will change the minds of the yes on prop 8 people I have seen post here. And to judge by the results so far, it is simply a matter of time ... the results from the two ballot measures show fewer and fewer people supporting this form of discrimination and more courts are recognizing this as a basic right people, regardless of their sexual orientation. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:55 AM:

" RDM1 If your argument is true, it would be a clear example that sexual orientation is not a choice. Even removing the stigma and social and legal restraints won't change orientation, and people will still reproduce. "

savanna wrote on Dec 8, 2008 10:01 AM:

" The list grows longer. Please add my name to the wall of shame, I will also support all of you that are already there. Maybe we should build a real one down town "

urte wrote on Dec 8, 2008 11:26 AM:

" My name was omitted as well...how do I add it?
I too will support everyone on the list! Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Why is it that only gays have rights? Why don't the rest of us have the right to vote against something we believe?

I could care less what you do in your bedroom ...just like I don't think it is anyone's business what I do in mine...but I will never attempt to shove it down anyone's throat...

Marriage is between a man and a woman...the plumbing happens to work better that way...!

We already have domestic partner laws in this state...why is that not enough?

Can we not keep at least one ...meaning traditional marriage...for those of us that want it? "

John Richards wrote on Dec 8, 2008 3:27 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "John. Those restrictions were not voted in by a popular majority vote and did not repeal rights that had been previously recognized. This was about keeping a minority group from having equality under the law."

Your narrowing of the scope of your previous overly broad statement is noted. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 8, 2008 3:35 PM:

" Raven wrote: "so again you are saying it is not proper for people to marry who cannot reproduce or will not reproduce JR ... "

Traditional marriage was meant to be the starting base for a new family, a safe haven in which to bring up kids.
Heterosexuals AS A CLASS can reproduce. The fact that some individuals of that class can't do so does not take away from the general case. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 8, 2008 3:50 PM:

" "check out the Christian morals of all our elected officials. How many have cheated on their wives, solicited gay sex in bathrooms, and had mistresses? The Christian beliefs held by our elected officials is rather superficial."

When a prominent Christian sins, it makes all the headlines. No one claims that Christians are sinless. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 8, 2008 3:53 PM:

" Maven wrote: "I'm actually a heterosexual, a Christian and a leader in a mainstream denomination. I used to be anti-gay (at least theologically)..."

I'm curious, which mainstream Christian denomination disregards the plain meaning of Romans 1:26-27? "

Raven wrote on Dec 8, 2008 6:43 PM:

" JR...lesbians, as a class, can reproduce they just need the assistance of med technology "

napajen wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:37 PM:

" With all the old testament quoting going on here -- you seem to be missing the BIG point of the bible. I know I'm stating the obvious but the Bible is divided into 2 testaments - old and new. Old is full fire and brimstone with an angry God, floods, bad shellfish, selling your daughters and stoning your neighbors. Then Christ dies for ALL of our sins. The new testament moves forward with God wanting us to love one another.

So quoting the old testament and trying to make that true today is to invalidate Christ's greatest gift to us. How Christian is that?? If you're going to use the bible, get it right...

Chris, I know the good and stand up person you are and support you proudly. "

napapatriot wrote on Dec 8, 2008 11:37 PM:

" Pat Boone's comments today prove why we need people like Chris Edwards. Thank God for Chris, God protect us all from the Pat Boones of the world. To those shamelessly cowarding behind the pacifist approach we have tried that the last ten years and failed. Don't criticize embrace a moderately agressive approach to the fight. If Obama had not fought a firm informed fight exposing the enemy on the extreme right he would not have won. It is time we apply some of their own tactics back at them you need agression every now and then with tempered passive followup to prevail. "

alucawanza wrote on Dec 8, 2008 11:41 PM:

" John R: I looked up the two passages and pasted them for the world to see. As Napajen says..you must not eat shellfish. You must also stone your wife and sell your daughter into slavery..all practices that the Old Testament advocates.
BTW: Keep your bible out of my Constitution. What the bible says has no influence on Constitutional law. The bible is just giving you what you believe is a reasonable excuse to bash gays.
But nothing will change your mind or your heart. You're stuck in the B.C. age. So....let's just watch and see what the California Supreme Court does. They speak for the minority when the majority has behaved unconstitutionally. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 9, 2008 12:02 AM:

" ReneeFannin wrote "It was an constitutional revision disguised as an ammendment..."

That's not for you to decide. You know very well that this particular issue will be ruled on by California's Supreme Court. In the meantime, they have refused to issue an injunction against the stopping of gay marriages, so ultimately you have your Court to thank for that. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 9, 2008 12:08 AM:

" napajen, you won't see me quoting from the Old Testament here. There is plenty of ammunition in the New Testament. "

Raven wrote on Dec 9, 2008 8:09 AM:

" no, we have those who voted to strip away the right to marry for the stopping of same sex marriages, JR "

RDM1 wrote on Dec 9, 2008 11:06 AM:

" Raven wrote to JR "lesbians, as a class, can reproduce they just need the assistance of med technology"

That is exactly the case. The only option that naturally (of it's very nature) leads to reproduction is the hetero-sexual option. So, that option is special and protected. For those who wish to reproduce without having to personally touch the other sex, there is always Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and civil unions or domestic partnerships. While there were just under 50,000 ART births in U.S. last year, about 1% of births. Even among them, the vasty majority were performed for hetero-sexual couples who were experiencing difficulty conceiving. So, please excuse the community for not re-organizing it's culture in order to put their eggs in your virtually non-re-productive basket. "

RDM1 wrote on Dec 9, 2008 11:23 AM:

" equalnotspecial
I didn't say that sexual orientation was a choice. I said that only one form of sexuality naturally leads to reproduction, and that makes it special. Its a pragmatic thing, "It works." So you're right, you are now equal (legally) but not special (biologically). In fact, now that we live in a "Post-Feminist World" and technology has moved hetero-sexual contact from the 'required' to 'optional' column, in the recipe for conception, lets acknowledge the development. Homo-sexual couples, that have overcome the numerous obstacles to successful reproduction, and have actually reproduced, deserve all the special benefits that society bestows on married couples. The community has already done this. In fact, the doors have been openned much more broadly than I am suggesting. All the rights and privileges of marriage are already bestowed on domestic partnerships whether or not they have created new citizens. WOW, that's amazing. Still, they demand more. They want the community to redefine marriage in line with their superficial understanding of marriage (its all about love, romance, and personal commitment).

We can now equip double amputees with legs that allow them to run competitively with a normal persons. Why don't we do away with 'Phys.Ed.' There is no longer a need to protect or invest in healthy limbs. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 9, 2008 2:20 PM:

" What I was trying to say is that reproduction will occur without any privileges or incentives. It doesn't need encouragement. And no one would choose a same sex partner to avoid children. But fertility is not required for any marriage, so excluding gay people on that basis is not justified.
The children do need protections however, whether or not they are produced by straight couples, or adopted after straight couples have abused and discarded them.
And, everyone need exercise just to stay healthy. "

Raven wrote on Dec 9, 2008 2:57 PM:

" you are missing the point RDM1, it intellectually dishonest to say procreation is one of the goals of marriage and then dismiss the means by which that procreation is achieved. If procreation is one of the requirements for marriage as some have suggested, then it doesn't matter how that procreation occurs.

and the other point is no one is asking you to do anything, you are not being asked to marry anyone of your gender, you are not being asked to do anything other than recognize equality and a basic civil right.

and your logic regarding double amputees is flawed unless you are suggesting people have the amputations to secure the new legs. "

Fire Mike wrote on Dec 9, 2008 7:05 PM:

" John Richards – you wrote: “napajen, you won't see me quoting from the Old Testament here. There is plenty of ammunition in the New Testament." I certainly won’t dispute that. I just find it terribly sad that you – and so many other “believers”, as evidenced on these blogs – look to your “holy books” as stockpiles of “ammunition,” rather than sources of inspiration.

Whatever happened to, “I tell you the truth, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me”? Heck, I’m not even a believer and I find that inspiring! "

jmo wrote on Dec 9, 2008 8:40 PM:

" WOW!! You all are still at this????
Give it a rest and pick it up after the court decides. Or, shall we have a "no gay" day similar to San Francisco. -:) "

RDM1 wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:13 AM:

" equalnotspecial wrote "reproduction will occur without any privileges or incentives. It doesn't need encouragement." You are equating Sex and Reproduction. What you're saying amounts to, "Food will grow without agriculture. It doesn't require any special effort." You're right, there are hunter-gather groups that live tenuously, on the ragged edge as it were. But, most humans prefer a buffer between themselves and starvation. That's why agriculture was virtually universally adopted. Marriage is like agriculture, it prepares an environment (a social environment) so as to maximize the probability of success reproduction. Reproduction is not complete upon birth, any more than the farming is complete when the sprouts break the surface. Not every farmer will be succesful, but if the community needs food, it will support all reasonable efforts at farming. If someone is ignorant of farming procedures, and just wants to demonstrate that he has the Right to farm as he pleases, he shouldn't expect a lot of investment from the community. "

RDM1 wrote on Dec 10, 2008 9:25 AM:

" Raven wrote, "It is intellectually dishonest to say that procreation is one of the goals of marriage and then dismiss the means by which procreation is achieved."
What?

The community will support any reasonable effort at increasing the probability of its own survival. Efforts that are highly likely to succeed in this regard will draw massive support. Effort that are less likely to succeed, will draw less support. If the method of accomplishing something is widely known, but you want to use a completely different method, don't expect a lot of investment from others.
Unless you are proposing a new method that demonstrably improves the probability of surviving and thriving, the community will want to know, 'Why should I support your proposed change in method'? If your response is simply, "It would make me feel better." Then the community will decide based on how they feel about it. If your response is because I have a right, you've got to provide evidence that you have that right. I believe that the term marriage has always meant a social union between a man and a woman. Except for a few months, this has been common and explicit law in California. Whether or not there is, or will be, a right to marry a same sexed partner is still up in the air. You better hope that the, "It would make me feel better" type of answer will suffice. Because, your proposed change does not appear to offer the community an improved probability of surviving or thriving. "

Raven wrote on Dec 10, 2008 10:09 AM:

" RDM!, again..you cannot say one of the purposes of marraige is procreation, therefore same sex couples cannot marry since they cannot procreate...when it is proven and reliably so that they can using the same methods available to heterosexual couples....but procreation has no bearing on marriage unless you are also saying that childless couple and those who wish to not have children cannot marry, and I have yet to see that argument made by the yes on 8 folks.

and the term marriage has evolved through the centuries so claiming it as always mean something is baseless.

What we are saying is the only reason to you wish to deny same sex marriage is ''because it makes you feel better." "

Fire Mike wrote on Dec 10, 2008 12:53 PM:

" RDM1 - Are you actually arguing that allowing gays to marry threatens the survival of the human race? That's the logical conclusion of your argument . . . "

RDM1 wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:04 PM:

" Raven wrote "again..you cannot say one of the purposes of marraige is procreation,..." I'm sorry that you don't want to hear this, but again, Marriage is like agriculture, it prepares an environment (a social environment) so as to maximize the probability of successful reproduction. Reproduction is not complete upon birth, any more than the farming is complete when the sprouts break the surface. Not every farmer will be succesful, but if the community needs food, it will support all reasonable efforts at farming. Why do old folks get married? How about to excert some control over what happens to their property when they're gone. How about to widen the impact of their experience beyond the behavior of their own progeny. How about out of habit. How about to feel younger. It doesn't really matter.

Gay marriage has gone down in three elections in a row now. Mostly, it is the folks from the densly urban area that support it. The folks that live in the most artificial environments, the ones that have lost touch with the natural order of things. You'll have to come to terms with that, if you want to win the next election. "

RDM1 wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:10 PM:

" No Fire Mike, I'm saying that it's already tough enough, expensive enough, dangerous enough to have kids and raise them. We don't need an additional economic disadvantage with which to contend. Cities like San Francisco that cater to gays are forcing traditional families with children out. I'm not saying that it's intentional, but it is a fact. (see SF Chronicle, Friday, April20, 2007, Cecilia M Vega, "San Francisco Mayor Battles a Trend of Families Leaving the City") When I brought this up before someone retorted that the city is not catering to gays, it's catering to wealth. But that is my point exactly. You get to be a lot wealthier if you don't have to support kids. The community owes reproductive couples a great debt for voluntarily, and at their own expense, insuring it's survival. Traditionally that debt was paid with recognition, and honored status. Now, compliments of "me too" slackers, it ain't so. "

pharper wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:57 PM:

" I am stunned by your argument, RDM1. I am absolutely appalled.

First, I have to say that San Francisco does NOT cater to gays. San Francisco’s gay population just happens to exist in a place where homosexuality is not something to be hidden. I would bet money that the proportion of gay people to straight people in Napa is almost the same as in San Francisco . Most people in San Francisco are proudly heterosexual, thanks very much, just as in every other city. They may not have children, but it doesn't make them gay. If San Francisco is catering to anything, it is, as you said, wealth. That argument is wild speculation on your part without anything to back it up.

If the community should support all reasonable efforts of "farming," I would think that they should support gay marriage - after all, if marriage is to provide a stable environment for the raising of children, and gays are able to reproduce, then we should encourage their marriage.

What economic disadvantages are you talking about? Will allowing gay marriage take money or benefits away from straight couples? Actually, denying gays the right to marry took away much-needed revenue from the state of California. In the scheme of things, $60 million isn't much, but I would think that in this economy, every dollar counts.

Finally, two fairly unrelated things I feel a need to address in your post - first of all, I would venture to guess that most "old people" marry for love, not for financial security or to feel young. They marry for the same reason as anyone "young." Second, I live on a farm out in the Carneros region, so I'm no urban city kid who has lost touch with nature. "

pharper wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:57 PM:

" As a matter of fact, we have a pair of roosters who are inseparable (I won't tell you what they do with each other, but I will say they've rounded third base).

I would caution strongly against speculation. After all, you know what they say about assuming.... "

namaste wrote on Dec 10, 2008 9:31 PM:

" Wow. I can't believe that the legalization of gay marriage is even a question in the first place. How does it directly affect you (assuming you are not homosexual) if they are able to marry or not? Who are we to say whether someone who is in love should be able to marry?

Stop being so selfish wanting to make your personalities bigger. Let them marry for God's sake.

What are morals and who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong? Morals change with the times and the situations. This is one of those situations.

separation of church and state.
When it comes to teaching morals to children, a great one would be to accept everybody for who and what they are without ever discriminating against them. we are all human. maybe then you wouldn't have to worry that they be exposed to such "filthy morals" I pray for the children of those for the proposition because if they were to be gay, they would not be able to rely on their family to support them.

peace and love. "

Raven wrote on Dec 10, 2008 10:01 PM:

" first of all RD, it has been two elections not three.

Marriage as a form of agriculture ... interesting but again you have yet to produce anything that says why same sex couples cannot join in the farming. They can produce children, raise families and provide stable and loving relationships for their children to thrive in, just as heterosexual couples do. So your point is what?

And while you have brought up your position that gay couple are the reasons families are leaving SF, you have yet to produce anything to show the facts to back it up. In fact, your argument would also include younger and older heterosexual couples without children as factors since they are the least likely to have children.

and since the vast majority of people live in urban environments, maybe those who live in the 'natural' world had better learn to adjust to the changes that are coming. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 11, 2008 12:44 AM:

" Fire Mike wrote: "I just find it terribly sad that you – and so many other “believers”, as evidenced on these blogs – look to your “holy books” as stockpiles of “ammunition,” rather than sources of inspiration."

I never stated or implied that the Bible is nothing but a stockpile of 'ammunition'. It certainly is many things, not the least of which is a source of inspiration. It just so happens that in this particular debate, the verses that provide 'ammunition' seem more pertinent to the issue at hand than the verses that provide inspiration. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 11, 2008 12:49 AM:

" alucawanza wrote "John R: I looked up the two passages and pasted them for the world to see. As Napajen says..you must not eat shellfish. You must also stone your wife and sell your daughter into slavery..all practices that the Old Testament advocates."

I don't know what the point of that was. New Testament verses clearly indicate that the Jewish OT laws and practices are no longer to be followed. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 11, 2008 1:03 AM:

" alucawanza wrote: "let's just watch and see what the California Supreme Court does. They speak for the minority when the majority has behaved unconstitutionally."

If I were you, I wouldn't get too comfortable believing that the Court will rule against Prop 8. Preliminary head counts indicate a 4-3 majority for upholding Prop 8. "

Raven wrote on Dec 11, 2008 7:33 AM:

" and yet jesus says he was here to fulfill the law ...the old testament law, JR,,the point is where did jesus condemn homosexuality?

and people have gone broke trying to guess what the court will do when they haven't even heard oral arguments yet and won't till march...a surer sign they would uphold Prop 8 would have been having the case make it way up thru the trial courts instead of giving it a fast track for a hearing.....but even should they uphold it....look for a ballot measure in 2010 "

RDM1 wrote on Dec 11, 2008 8:41 AM:

" Raven -- I have never opposed same sex couples joining in on the farming! My position is that because reproduction is not a natural, expected consequence of their unions, they should have to demonstrate their resolve to contribute before being accorded the status and privileges of marital partners. Regardless of the nature of the service, you would expect to pay up front for the creative services of a known performer, but you should be hesitant to pay up front for the services of people who are poorly equipped and have never performed. "

RDM1 wrote on Dec 11, 2008 8:48 AM:

" Pharper, your internal states are of no concern to anyone but you. Try to stick with arguments that are relevant to others outside your skin. "

Raven wrote on Dec 11, 2008 10:07 AM:

" RDM1, first of all pharper's statements are just as valid to this discussion as any of your's.....no need to be rude.

Secondly, by your own argument then, people must prove they can 'farm' to join in and have to prove it before joining...so you are eliminating any couples who cannot or will have children, regardless of the sexuality orientation....and frankly I equate marriage and child rearing to a higher status than performing.... "

Fire Mike wrote on Dec 11, 2008 12:21 PM:

" John Richards – You say, “It just so happens that in this particular debate, the verses that provide 'ammunition' seem more pertinent to the issue at hand than the verses that provide inspiration." They seem more pertinent TO YOU. Other believers, who are equally devout, equally intelligent and equally knowledgeable about scripture, find the opposite to be true. My point is that you CHOOSE to see ammunition rather than inspiration. Your Bible provides justification for just about any argument under the sun. The important thing as far as I’m concerned is not so much what it says, but how you apply it. When your Bible conflicts with itself, you must CHOOSE what is pertinent, you must CHOOSE what verses to apply. Your Bible provides support for both sides of this debate and you have CHOSEN inequality over inclusion. You have CHOSEN condemnation over compassion. And that is what I find sad. "

Fire Mike wrote on Dec 11, 2008 12:46 PM:

" RDM1 – Let me try to get this straight: “The community owes reproductive couples a great debt for voluntarily, and at their own expense, insuring it's survival.” I’m not sure what you mean by “community”, but since this was a statewide proposition, I’ll assume you mean the citizens of California. So are you saying that the citizens of California owe a “great debt” to people who have children? And that that debt is repaid with “recognition, and honored status” (marriage)? Are you saying that marriage is the reward a couple receives for agreeing to have children? Let me rephrase that: You ARE saying that marriage is the reward a couple receives from the state for agreeing to have children.

I think you’ll find that, even among the most ardent Prop 8 supporters, your characterization of marriage is so far removed from the reality of the institution as to be laughable. You can ask (almost) anyone on either side of this debate what a marriage is, and nearly universally the consensus is that a marriage is a union between two people, based on their desire to join their lives. Virtually no one will agree that marriage is a “reward” to be granted by the state. The argument here is over who gets to participate in this institution, not whether the state has an interest in determining how many children are born. In fact, if you’ve driven on any Bay Area highway lately, you must see that it would be in the state’s interest to decrease population growth, rather than increase it. And because the state grants benefits to married couples, the institution of marriage should be available to all couples who wish to marry. "

mominapa wrote on Dec 11, 2008 2:24 PM:

" All discrimination is wrong. All hate and hate crimes are wrong. People who believe homosexuality is a choice are wrong. The Bible, while an informative book of the times was written when the general consensus was that the Earth was flat and that all other stars and planets revolved around the Earth. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

Chris Edwards is not wrong. ROCK ON, CHRIS. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 11, 2008 11:15 PM:

" Raven wrote "" and yet jesus says he was here to fulfill the law ...the old testament law, JR,

Right, and He did fulfill the law, payment in full, on the cross. What is your point?

" where did jesus condemn homosexuality?"

He didn't. He also didn't condemn bestiality, or pedophilia, or a lot of other activities that would have been considered heinous crimes in His day. Suffice it to say that he felt no compelling need to discuss these issues because they were not a prevalent problem. However, his 12 disciples, when they branched out into the Greek and Roman cities, found plenty of those activities, which made it necessary for them to speak out against it. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 11, 2008 11:28 PM:

" Fire Mike wrote: "Your Bible provides justification for just about any argument under the sun."

Sorry, I can't agree with that.
To be sure, there are some points of disagreement between the mainstream Christian churches over the interpretation of some parts of Scripture. For example, some say that infant baptism is required while others say, no, only adult baptism is a valid sacrament. However, there is no disagreement over what the non-contested 98% or so of Scripture means. The New Testament passages speaking out against homosexuality are unmistakable and can't be explained away. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 11, 2008 11:38 PM:

" mominnapa wrote: "The Bible, while an informative book of the times was written when the general consensus was that the Earth was flat and that all other stars and planets revolved around the Earth. Wrong..."

The Bible was not meant to be a science text book. The scientific cites are merely a reflection of the understanding that people had at that time, which is why it uses terminology like "the four corners of the earth".

In the realm of morality, however, there are some eternal truths. For example, murder and stealing have always been wrong and will always be wrong. You may not agree with it, but most religious people (and some others) believe that homosexuality also qualifies as one of those things that will always be wrong. "

Raven wrote on Dec 12, 2008 8:13 AM:

" JR, you may believe homosexuality is morally wrong all you like....no one is saying you have to practice it .. but when you impose your morality upon others that you cross the line ...

JR, again you cannot dismiss that even among devout christians there is disagreement as to the exact meaning of the texts of the Bible... there isnt even agreement among them as to which translation to use ... so to use that as a basis to impose your morally structure upon others is resting upon shaky ground at best.

Even murder and stealing are not morally absolutes JR, even in your Bible...Thou Shalt not kill....is that just murder or does that include deaths from warfare? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 12, 2008 8:18 AM:

" Even if "most" people sit in judgement of gay people and decide their love is wrong, that doesn't make it true. Many people of faith as well as non believers do not see it as wrong while seeing judgement and discrimination as wrong.
Rev. William Sinkford, President, Unitarian Universalist Church said. "The Unitarian Universalist Association has a long-standing and deeply held religious commitment to support full equality for gay people. We dedicate ourselves to work for justice, grounded in faith, which calls us to support everyone's full humanity, everyone's ability to love, and everyone's value in the world. "

Fire Mike wrote on Dec 12, 2008 3:19 PM:

" JR – You are correct that “murder and stealing have always been wrong and will always be wrong.” However, they were wrong long before Christianity was invented. There is nothing exclusively “Christian” in condemning those acts. However, it was your God who condoned – in fact, ordered – those acts to be carried out by His “Chosen People” in their quest for their “Promised Land.” Your Bible has been used to successfully justify rape, murder, slavery, misogyny, racism, torture – and you and I can agree that all those are immoral. Why? Because you CHOOSE to interpret your scripture differently than those who used it to justify those horrors.

My point, again, is that in interpreting your scripture, you must CHOOSE what is applicable. Your CHOICE is to lump homosexuality in with murder and theft as examples of “eternal” wrongs. You CHOOSE to live by archaic social standards, even in light of the twenty-first century understanding of homosexuality as a normal, healthy display of human bonding.

You cannot simply shirk responsibility and say, “I believe this because my Bible tells me so,” because your Bible also instructs you to be compassionate toward others. It is your CHOICE to believe and act as you do.

Regardless of our faith, each of us is responsible for our own actions. Perhaps if we all paid more attention to how our actions affect others, instead of relying on what a book says we ought to think or do, we’d all be much better off. "

Rich wrote on Dec 12, 2008 4:04 PM:

" equalnotspecial, you might want to do a little research on the Unitarian Universalist Church before you start quoting them. Their beliefs are most definitely not those of mainstream Christianity. "

alucawanza wrote on Dec 12, 2008 4:51 PM:

" JR: Homosexuality is not wrong. It just is. It is not a matter of morality, sin, or choice. It just is. Heterosexuality just is. It is not a choice. There is no sin. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. No one wants you to be a homosexual. But everyone is deserving of respect and equal treatment under the law. Homosexuals are human beings that deserve respect and equal treatment under the law. Every other law in the land applies to them. Why not the right to marry? No other law treats them differently. Denying them the right to marry denigrates their humanity. It will change. "

Raven wrote on Dec 12, 2008 5:47 PM:

" how do you define mainstream Rich?... what are the key factors, simple numbers? or what? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 13, 2008 5:57 PM:

" The point is, the religions don't agree. But none of them should get to write their beliefs into law when those beliefs aren't supported by science. "

toobuff wrote on Dec 14, 2008 11:03 PM:

" prob 8 is a flood gate, and if you allow two men to marry, why not allow polygamy? the argument is if you love someone it shouldn't matter what sex they are, but at the same time with the same argument, if two women love the same man, with your same theory, why is polygamy illegal? i see no difference. one can make that same defense for either. what are all you gays complaining about? marriage is a sanctity overseen by god, and the last time I checked, according to most religions, gays are going to hell... and the tax breaks are the same for marriage as they are for gays which the legal name has escaped me. something union i believe. "

Rich wrote on Dec 15, 2008 12:32 PM:

" Raven, Google it and read for yourself.
Wikipedia has a lot of good info on it. "

Raven wrote on Dec 15, 2008 2:52 PM:

" so Rich, I know what it means but I am curious how you define it ... what sects do you consider mainstream and what don't you ... sort of gives everyone a common frame of reference... "

Fire Mike wrote on Dec 15, 2008 4:03 PM:

" toobuff - just to clear up some misunderstandings: first, marriage is not "a sanctity overseen by god." In California, marriage is a civil institution. The state recognizes marriages performed by clergy, but certainly does not require any religion to bless a union.

With respect to the polygamy argument: people who want to engage in polygamy have every right to bring a case before the courts and have a fair hearing, just like gay marriage advocates did. However, I don't foresee that happening anytime soon. And the argument is a little bizarre, too. Basically you're arguing that the right to marry should be denied to one group because you fear that another, unrelated group might want to claim the same right.

As far as "what are all you gays complaining about," two points: first, we're not all gay. The vast majority of people who oppose marriage discrimination are straight, in fact. Second, what we are complaining about is that one group of Californians voted to strip the right to marry from another group of citizens. Each of us should be treated equally under the law, whether or not you think some of us are going to hell. "

toobuff wrote on Dec 15, 2008 6:02 PM:

" most in fact all marriages i've been to have had a pastor or priest bless the marriage, so that right there is religious aspect. and no, i don't see a difference between two men marrying or two women and a man marrying. they're both ruining the sanctity of "marriage." a marriage has for centuries been a religious act, between one man and one woman when govt rose to power they accepted it as a civil union, no different than what gays can currently do and receive the same tax breaks. "

cedwardswine wrote on Dec 15, 2008 6:33 PM:

" According to the NCLR there are 1,138 federal rights and protections that are given only to legally married
spouses. Accordingly, the federal government will not respect your domestic partnership because
domestic partnership is not marriage.

A straight twist...
In Orange County a gentleman of public record named Ron Garber’s divorce proceedings took on a twist that leaves him wondering about the fairness of family law issues, something gays and lesbians have been wondering about for years. It seems Garber agreed to pay alimony for five years to his ex-wife. He was aware at the time of the alimony agreement that she was living with another woman. What he failed to find out was she and her partner had registered as domestic partners with the state. When Garber learned about this, he assumed there would be NO alimony. (I agree that should have been the case but) An Orange County judge ruled differently, stating that a registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage. So Garber must keep writing the checks. In this case Prop 8 is forcing a straight man to pay alimony to a lady in a domestic partner arrangement. If she was married the could would have stopped the payments. This is discrimination with a twist resulting as a fallout from Prop 8 in conservative Orange County "

Raven wrote on Dec 15, 2008 9:38 PM:

" toobuff, there is no requirement that any marriage has a religious sanctification ... all marriages are civil, hence the reason for getting a license for it and you are wrong about civil unions getting the same tax breaks as a marriage ... they don't. "

Fire Mike wrote on Dec 15, 2008 9:56 PM:

" toobuff - please go research marriage. For much of it's history it has NOT been a religious institution. Today, marriage is a CIVIL institution. Clergy are authorized by the state to perform weddings, not the other way around.

As far as "ruining the sanctity of "marriage," a marriage is "sanctified" to the extent that the participants are devoted to one another and to the relationship. The type of genitals present in the union has nothing to do with its "sanctity." "

toobuff wrote on Dec 16, 2008 10:01 PM:

" well i didn't want it to happen, and look, i got my way...haha "

Raven wrote on Dec 16, 2008 11:00 PM:

" don't gloat yet toobuff...the fight aint over by a long shot..... "

napapaul wrote on Dec 17, 2008 3:19 PM:

" Double standard here?
..it is hateful to seek to bring financial harm to those with a different opinion (those who are willing to put their $$ behind their convictions).

Since they are being targeted for their participation in the process, I will go out of my way to suppport them and their businesses.

Prop 8 passed. The majority in CA spoke. Let's move on. "

Raven wrote on Dec 17, 2008 6:02 PM:

" and the double standard....did anyone threaten to expose them unless they contributed to the no campaign like the yes on 8 campaign did to businesses who donated to the no campign?

glad to see the morals at play here ... "

aknra wrote on Dec 18, 2008 7:50 PM:

" I never donated towards Proposition 8, but I voted FOR it. I feel left out now. How can people like me donate to the cause after the fact, so we can get our own names on this list? Speaking of intolerance on parade, we now see the twisted panties of the main stream 'gay' lobby due to the choice of their ‘Anointed One’ Barrak Hussein Obama’s choice for Reader at his Coronation - OOOPS, I meant Inauguration. BTW, did you all see the recent photo which was unearthed of him smoking his dope? Speaks for itself. "

Join the conversation

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

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

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

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

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

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

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

The fine print

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

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

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

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

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

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

Search: