Councilman wants Napa supporting overturn of Prop 8

Home » News » Local

Call for resolution from van Gorder; council debate March 17 on same-sex marraige issue

Friday, March 06, 2009

Comment

By KEVIN COURTNEY
Register Staff Writer

11:30 a.m.Councilman Mark van Gorder is asking the City Council to jump into the debate over Proposition 8, the statewide ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage in California.

Van Gorder wants the Napa council to adopt a resolution asking the state Supreme Court to overturn Prop. 8 because it discriminates against a minority group.

The council takes up van Gorder’s request on March 17 while the Supreme Court is deliberating on a challenge to Prop. 8’s constitutionality.

The proposed resolution supports “fairness, equality, equal rights for everyone,” van Gorder said. Although Prop. 8 passed statewide and in Napa County, 56 percent of city voters rejected it in November, he said.

When van Gorder asked Tuesday for the council to schedule a discussion of Prop. 8, he was initially greeted with silence from fellow council members.

Councilman Peter Mott was the first to respond. “I think these are state issues that don’t belong on city agendas,” he said.

Van Gorder countered that former Mayor Ed Henderson had set a precedent for the city supporting the rights of all citizens. In 2002, Henderson declared June to be Gay Pride Month, triggering both praise and criticism.

Councilwoman Juliana Inman questioned the appropriateness of a city resolution on a social issue. State environmental and budget issues might appropriately come before the council, but she wasn’t sure about marriage.

Mayor Jill Techel doubted that a city resolution would have any affect on the Supreme Court, which would be expected to rule based on “legal merit.”

Asked for his opinion, City Attorney Michael Barrett said the council has the right to pass resolutions on any subject that would affect city residents. A ban on same-sex marriages would have an effect “on how the city does business,” he said.

As for the impact a city resolution would have on the high court, Barrett said it would be “questionable.”

Hearing Barrett’s opinion, Mott changed his mind and said he would be willing to have the council discuss taking a position on the challenge to Prop. 8.

Inman said she would be absent on the 17th, leaving the discussion to the other four council members.

On Friday, Councilman Jim Krider said the council would be taking up an issue fraught with controversy. Prop. 8 “is the third rail for a lot of people. It’s very controversial. It gets to the core of what makes people tick,” he said.

“It went to a statewide vote. As a municipality, should we get involved in something that was adopted by a popular vote?” Krider said. “I’m going to be as neutral as I can be.”

Van Gorder said the proposed resolution has been passed by other city councils in California. The measure states:

“The city of Napa supports equal protection, which prohibits unequal government treatment of historically targeted minority groups and ensures that laws enacted by a majority must apply equally to all people.”

The resolution finds that “Prop. 8 would severely undermine the foundational principle of equal protection by establishing that any disfavored minority can be targeted to have its fundamental rights stripped away by a simple majority vote.”

Prop. 8 is “discriminatory at its essence,” the resolution states. “We the people of Napa do not support this discrimination and believe that all people regardless of gender should be able to enter into legal matrimony and receive equal social and legal benefits and recognition including use of the term ‘marriage.’”

Supporters of Prop. 8 say the ballot measure restored the traditional definition of marriage that had existed from statehood until a recent state Supreme Court decision.

Until Prop. 8 closed the door on same-sex marriages, some 18,000 same-sex couples had married in California, including couples in Napa County.

150 comment(s)

wined0wnnapa wrote on Mar 6, 2009 11:46 AM:

" lets support the wishes of the minority voters who wish to legalize marijuanna and elect john mcccain also. "

antipc wrote on Mar 6, 2009 11:58 AM:

" The city council has no dog in this hunt & should not be wasting time lobbying the Supreme Court for an outcome that does not affect their duties. "

urte wrote on Mar 6, 2009 12:05 PM:

" Which part of the people voted do we not understand...?
Let it be...the voice of the people is clear...! Quit messing with it... "

savenapa wrote on Mar 6, 2009 12:06 PM:

" Call for resignation of van Gorder. "

kim A wrote on Mar 6, 2009 12:09 PM:

" Why do the citizens even bother to vote? The people have voted twice against gay marriage. Do the voters not have a voice? I know who I will not vote for again! "

Common Sense wrote on Mar 6, 2009 12:17 PM:

" Impeach Van Gorder! We don't need to drag our city into this! "

krusty wrote on Mar 6, 2009 12:28 PM:

" Good luck, savenapa. I believe 60% of Napa's voters voted in opposition to Prop. 8. I fully support Van Gorder and his position.

An interesting side note is that LGBT tourism is one of the fastest growing tourist segments. The gay and lesbian segment is estimated at $55 billion annual market as of 2007. The city is wise to promote itself as LGBT friendly. And with San Francisco close by, it makes even more sense. "

mykdgirl54 wrote on Mar 6, 2009 12:41 PM:

" I second that savenapa! How out of touch can you be to suggest something like this!

The city has BIGGER more immediate issues that are within the parameters of its jurisdiction that would directly impact Napans immediately. The call by Mr. Van Gorder is noble in it's attempt but ridiculous in its priority with whats happening now in Napa. We have poor roads, schools, and are in the midst of trying to revive downtown in the face of a recession. I doubt that taking up valuable time, energy, and resouces to fight a social cause would sit well with Napans. "

joining wrote on Mar 6, 2009 1:01 PM:

" I totally support van Gorder, and am glad he's speaking up! Thank you!! I want to live in a community that is not afraid to state its position on equality or its opposition to discrimination. "

grapegirl wrote on Mar 6, 2009 1:02 PM:

" There are serious current issues for the Council to work on. This request to debate a done deal is just a frivolous waste of what could be productive time. "

nightwatchman wrote on Mar 6, 2009 1:02 PM:

" Go Mark!

As we've seen already, the flat-earthers are beginning to descend. Way to stand up for what is right. "

get a life wrote on Mar 6, 2009 1:03 PM:

" I am so disapointed in Van Gorder! Are you kidding me? Of all the people who should respoect the electoral process. Bottom line... We already voted!! Maybe we should revisit the Van Gorder election and have that election overturned, the way that he wants prop 8 overturned!!! "

CaliGirl wrote on Mar 6, 2009 1:12 PM:

" I voted against same sex marriages......I will continue to vote against, protest against, stand out against same sex marriages until my last breath is taken.

I live in Napa......Napa has no place telling anyone that I support the idea of same sex marriages.....which is what they would be doing if they followed Mr. Van Gorder's request

The City of Napa MUST stay neutral in this debate. Unless 100% of the citizens of Napa were for same sex marriages their is no place for the City of Napa to be putting it's nose into this matter......PERIOD end of story.

I will remember this request by Mr Van Gorder the next time I am in the voting booth.....as I am sure many others will do also......I wont be punching his name......that's for sure. "

altered ego wrote on Mar 6, 2009 1:26 PM:

" So all the problems facing the city have been resolved?

There is nothing more important before the council than pandering to the special interest groups?

I knew Van Gorder was a Democrat, but I didn't expect he would grandstand purely for publicity purposes. "

Bauhausfan wrote on Mar 6, 2009 1:31 PM:

" I think we should have a state propistion for all to vote on that left handed people can only marry other left handed people.

Makes as much sense as Prop 8. "

jerryga wrote on Mar 6, 2009 1:39 PM:

" Once again, local politicians riding the fence on this one, afraid to lose the gay vote. Clearly, the people have spoken, twice now, do what the people want, not what your political career warrants... "

greyhoundgirl wrote on Mar 6, 2009 1:42 PM:

" It's ridiculous to say "go with the minority and legalize marijuana and elect McCain". The whole point of this is it effects a minority, not EVERYONE. Legalizing marijuana would make it legal for EVERYONE, not just straight people. You can't single out a minority, no matter how red your neck is. "

Paddy wrote on Mar 6, 2009 1:57 PM:

" Keep your sex-life out of my politics. "

Paddy wrote on Mar 6, 2009 1:59 PM:

" Anything voted in by a majority should be overturned. Starting with Van Gorder. "

nativnapan wrote on Mar 6, 2009 2:09 PM:

" I would be more than happy to take time off work just to circulate a recall petition on Mr. Van Gorder.

remember sir you are an elected official tread carefully on issues already voted on.
or you may be on the outside looking in again.

napans don't need grand stand politics,
if thats your style go to sf or berkley.

we need results on our own issues.
and i think we have more than you can handle already.

recall!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

notpc wrote on Mar 6, 2009 2:10 PM:

" Let the Supreme Court do their job. Councilman Van Gorder do yours and handle the City of Napa's business. We have enough problems without wasting time with issues that are not in your domain. "

Straight Talk wrote on Mar 6, 2009 2:14 PM:

" Taking up public issues "fraught with controversy" is why we are elected to public office.

A majority of Napa voters opposed proposition 8. A ban on same-sex marriages will have an effect on how our city does business. The resolution states: “The city of Napa supports equal protection, which prohibits unequal government treatment of historically targeted minority groups….”

A council resolution on this issue will not interfere with street and sidewalk repair; has no impact on local schools or our economy; does not impact the city budget; is not lobbying the State Supreme Court; will not reverse the majority vote of Californians; and I am not “grandstanding purely for publicity purposes.” I believe with all my soul that opposing proposition 8 is the right thing to do.

The validity and implementation of proposition 8 is in the hands of the courts. Each city council member is free to support or oppose proposition 8.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

In the future, I will look back at this time in history and say that I reaffirmed my belief that all men and women are created equal. I will always be a voice for liberty and justice for all. I’m sorry to see those long-held American beliefs are no longer valued by so many people.

Mark van Gorder "

Raven wrote on Mar 6, 2009 2:17 PM:

" ROFL ... you pro prop 8 folks do remember that it lost in Napa county...55.6 to 44.4 percent according to the final at the sec of state's office...

so Van Gorder wants the city to support the rights of a minority....this is wrong how? "

winewoman wrote on Mar 6, 2009 2:44 PM:

" The gay demographics' tourism and wine consumption business is important to Napa. It is a wise decision for Napa to be gay friendly. We should plan to be in a good positoin once Prop 8 is finally defeated. The gay demographic has huge spending power. Napa shouldn't be so arrogant and self righteous as to forget where their bread is buttered. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 6, 2009 3:01 PM:

" LOL - look at all the threats to Van Gorder - impeach, recall - you people are laughable. Van Gorder IS representing the will of the people - the LOCAL people - Prop 8 was defeated in Napa County. In these difficult economic times, do we really want to dissuade business in Napa? Really? "

antipc wrote on Mar 6, 2009 3:04 PM:

" So if it's O.K. to for the city council to lobby for the gay agenda then I think they should spend equal time lobbying in opposition to the assault weapons ban.

winewoman you grossly over state the financial benefits. "

napaoldguy wrote on Mar 6, 2009 3:09 PM:

" "winewoman"
So your saying if they can't marry they won't drink wine?
We need to get rid of Van Gorder aand drop the subject YOU LOSE by popular vote "

JustAnotherManicMonday wrote on Mar 6, 2009 3:10 PM:

" Mark- this isn't City Policy, or a rule or resolution- it's for city politics, and it's not relevant to Napa. It shouldn't be on the council agenda. "

littlered56 wrote on Mar 6, 2009 3:16 PM:

" so ther are no Gay Republicans!!
Equal rights for all people is what is at issue here. . not your political or religious choices. . .
Good job Mark...welcome out of the dark ages. "

NAPA66 wrote on Mar 6, 2009 3:26 PM:

" This is not a subject that the Council needs to take up. There is so much more pressing business to take care of. The Supreme Court will give a legal opinion on the issue. We should all try to abide by their decision. Napa Council members do not have the expertise nor experience to deal with such matters. I agree that I will watch their names if they run for office again and do not vote for them. "

kbf wrote on Mar 6, 2009 3:40 PM:

" The city should stay out of it, so should the county. It was a state wide vote not just napa. Mr Van Gorder should stay trying to fix napa in ways that matter to all. If the council opens this can of worms it is going to get messy. Where is it going to stop in supporting different state issues. "

TonkaSpirit wrote on Mar 6, 2009 3:47 PM:

" Shame on all of those who do not stand up for your fellow man and to insure that everyone human being has equal rights. You will no doubt cast shame upon yourselfs for generations to come. What a man Van Gorder is, too bad all of the fears of bigotry & hypocrisy have resulted in such a lopsided ruling. Remember when the Mormons taught their followers that black people were not equal? Pretty foolish & disgusting now, isn't it? "

savenapa wrote on Mar 6, 2009 3:58 PM:

" It is absurd that Van Gorder would make a statement that we who are traditional somehow are not American, or oppose American ideals. Mr. Van Gorder, you state "I’m sorry to see those long-held American beliefs are no longer valued by so many people.

Sir, I submit to you that is a longer held American belief that one man and one woman marry- period. A far longer held belief than the ideas that you recent few have been in collusion with as of late.

I've been a taxpaying homeowner in Napa for the last 35 years. You claim that somehow the position I cling to is somehow non-American?

How long have all of you pro-gay agenda proponents been paying property tax in Napa? I guarantee that the majority of the tax dollars that have come into this community over the last half century are from traditionalists. You are all standing on the backs of traditionalists and you have the nerve to come here as of late and cry foul. The current real estate market pleases me so. Now those who have come here to make a quick dollar and have a cheap thrill are turned upside down. "

NapaRights wrote on Mar 6, 2009 4:05 PM:

" Kudos to Mark for taking on this heated issue. It’s great to see he is willing to demonstrate that he truly cares about equality for all people and he does this in such a public way and with passion and conviction. That’s admirable! Not many people have the courage to do that. Even if this may not be something the City Council should get involved in directly, I think it’s nice to see he is actively engaged and wants to do what he feels is right to stop the discrimination. At the very least, it might jumpstart the dialogue going on within our own community! "

tsgets wrote on Mar 6, 2009 4:14 PM:

" Mr. Van Gorder,

You can count on me "overturning" you in the next election should you feel it is sane enough to run again for councilman! "

VERUM wrote on Mar 6, 2009 4:31 PM:

" BRAVO Mark Van Gorder! You speak for a great many Napa Voters/Human Beings.

Adopting a resolution will not take anymore effort than creating an ordinance to monitor guest rentals near the country club. An ordinance for 74! houses. WOW. "

Dirty Napkin wrote on Mar 6, 2009 5:14 PM:

" No on 8 No to h8 "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 6, 2009 5:30 PM:

" Thank you Mr. van Gorder, for standing up for equal rights for all. This is such a simple concept, it should pass without discussion. Unfortunatly, there are still a minority in Napa who can't overcome thier prejudice.
Keep speaking out for liberty and justice for all. "

justnana wrote on Mar 6, 2009 5:33 PM:

" Oh Mark, what have you done?? I fully support the ability of consenting adults of whatever race or sexual orientation to be legally married, but don't believe that our City Council is the right venue for this issue. I hope that those who do not believe in equality for all, will be able to see past their knee-jerk reaction and vote either for or against you based on your performance as a Councilman, not on this issue. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 6, 2009 5:40 PM:

" The nation's estimated 15.7 million gay men and lesbians are responsible for $724 billion in annual spending. That number is growing. Individuals age 18 or older who self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender are projected to reach 16.3 million in three years, spending $835 billion annually -- a figure that translates into $51,200 per person a year.

A study released in July that said over the next three years about 32,200 same-sex couples will travel from other states to marry in Massachusetts. That translates into 330 jobs and a $111 million boost to the state's economy.

Source: Reuters "

lucylu wrote on Mar 6, 2009 6:04 PM:

" Mr. Van Gorder- You clearly have a agenda to advance yourself politically and are trying to position yourself for the next election.

We all know this social issue does not belong on a city council agenda- hence we can see through your own self serving agenda-

You've lost my vote and I did vote for you last time.

Next time have the respect and courage to state your opinion in a separate appropriate forum, don't waste city council time. "

antipc wrote on Mar 6, 2009 7:03 PM:

" Grandstanding & government abuse to further an agenda.

The Napa city councils position is irrelevant toward the outcome.

Mark, are you willing to hang your political future on an agenda that your opinion cannot impact?

winewoman, that money is better spent in a place that is more sympathetic no matter how skewed your numbers are. "

alucawanza wrote on Mar 6, 2009 7:08 PM:

" Our council can represent the city of Napa's voting majority in a resolution to the California Supreme Court. There are precedents for this. I totally support Mr. van Gorder and would gladly support him in future elections.

Thanks for the facts winewoman. I love it when a response to an opposing view or an answer to a sarcastic posting just says: Here are the facts...They do speak for themselves don't they? "

Vercingetorex wrote on Mar 6, 2009 7:28 PM:

" Marriage is as "discriminatory" against gays as the women's swim team is discriminatory against males. Marriage is an institution specifically for one man and one woman.
Ergo, there can be no "discrimination" for an arrangement outside of that set up.

I don't know how many more times that needs to be said before it sinks in.

Why doesn't Van Gorder stick to what he was elected to do, rather than ask the city council to politicize itself in social issues needlessly? He is only polarizing the city to no good end. "

zist707 wrote on Mar 6, 2009 7:34 PM:

" How scary that we live in a place where as soon as you voice your opinion people who believe differently want to impeach you. Good luck Van Gorder .

Did you all see that guy in front of the courthouse with the sign that read "Dan White was a hero!" geez... Honestly scares me that someone somehow thinks it's ok to kill a human simply because he's homosexual. It's disgusting to me, really.

I have yet to understand what people are so afraid of. I understand how people would want to protect the family, but no one is threatening it. They're making it seem like homosexuals are somehow against the family and want to destroy it. Which we all know is not true.
If anything, what's destroying marriage divorce! Why not try to ban that? Makes more sense doesn't it? It's unlikely, I know, but it still makes more sense in my mind. "

littlered56 wrote on Mar 6, 2009 7:53 PM:

" Oh I am so glad for this informtive bit of History of Napa...lets see now if I have this right, no republicans are Gay and no Gays pay taxex in Napa country for the last 35 years....It is the responsibilitey of every elected official to practice justice and equality for every one. . .HELLO!!!!! "

pernodboi wrote on Mar 6, 2009 8:18 PM:

" In this time of tightening budgets - the city sure could use the marriage fees - as well as the added revenue from hotels that would cater to weddings. To heck with the Jim Crowe 'family values', we need the loot!

Loves and hugs - Tony "

Gunga Ga Lunga wrote on Mar 6, 2009 9:01 PM:

" Very disappointed in Mark. Prop 8 does not erode any of the rights that this state has provided, but rather restores the traditional definition of marriage. There still exists, even with Prop 8, unprecedented constitutional protections for gays and lesbians in California.
Mark, stick to what you were elected to do. Whats next on your agenda? Free Mumia? Make Napa a nuclear free zone? "

Mr. Feasor wrote on Mar 6, 2009 9:15 PM:

" Wow,

I actually agree with most posters that I commonly disagree with here.

This is purely symbolic and will have no weight with the court.

If the real reason for passing this purely symbolic resolution is for commercial purposes, then that should be stated on the resolution's face.

Otherwise, I would prefer that our City Council attend to City business. "

Paddy wrote on Mar 6, 2009 9:20 PM:

" The vast majority of the earth's population is against the gay/lesbian/bisexual agenda yet that doesn't stop this very tiny minority from imposing their will upon the rest of humanity.... keep your sex-life out of my politics. "

raybo wrote on Mar 6, 2009 9:33 PM:

" I guess the Supreme Court is holding their decision pending word from the Napa City Council on how to vote. Otherwise, this resolution has no purpose other than politics. "

Straight Talk wrote on Mar 6, 2009 9:38 PM:

" The “Voice of the People” argument.

California, in 1996, had a total 56% yes vote on Prop 215 to add 11362.5 to the Health and Safety Code, legalizing medical marijuana for seriously ill patients.

If the Cityof Napa is to follow the “voice of California voters” in its city policies, then we must now consider policy related to Proposition 215 that “…allows Californians to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes when recommended by a physician.”

Federal law prohibits the distribution of marijuana in California and many marijuana distribution centers have been shut down by federal agents as illegal in the eyes of federal law.

So, do we follow United States Federal law or State of California law? "

VERUM wrote on Mar 6, 2009 9:43 PM:

" It is more than sex life Paddy, it is about spirituality. "

misfit wrote on Mar 6, 2009 10:11 PM:

" Keep your politics out of my bedroom! Equal rights for all! "

napascot wrote on Mar 6, 2009 10:36 PM:

" GO MARK.

Thank you for representing the MAJORITY of Napa! "

napa_mom wrote on Mar 6, 2009 10:49 PM:

" Thank you Mark! I am glad I voted for you, and will do so again.

You are sticking your neck out for everyone to have equal rights, I cannot think of a more admirable thing to do.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, not just waspy straight people that have paid property taxes in Napa for 35 years. "

littlered56 wrote on Mar 6, 2009 11:18 PM:

" How long a person has been paying their taxes has nothig to do with anothers persons rights to equality and justice in our country. Equalitey and justice is not doled out with your tax bill...it is a human right each of us should have guaranteed to us.
I know its hard this equalitey thing when you sure your better than "those" people . "

sicksense wrote on Mar 7, 2009 12:37 AM:

" Van Gorder just lost 4 votes in his next election that I know of for sure. "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 7, 2009 12:45 AM:

" When I got home today, I went to put water in the fountain. I grabbed the female end of one hose and mated it with the female connector of another hose. I turned on the water and I got all wet.

I think we ought to pass a law so that when I don't discriminate against hose connectors, I stay dry.

Maybe I can ask my city councilman to adopt a resolution that requires water to not leak when I use incorrect connectors. I want to be at the forefront of this movement, so we can all curse the reasonator when we get soaked.

Does that make sense to everyone ? If not, we can ask the Supreme Court for a clarification after we vote on it a few times "

jeeper16 wrote on Mar 7, 2009 12:53 AM:

" I can see it now........ Governor of California, Gavin Newsom. Mayor of San Francisco, Mark van Gorder......... "

FourLeafClover wrote on Mar 7, 2009 3:19 AM:

" Van Gorders arguement is the exact same arguement I have with everytime someone has a good cause they attack smokers for it's funding. When only 30% of the population smokes it's a very easy win at the polls to up the tax on tobacco. Why isn't this considered discrimination against a minority group? I say the next time we need funds we up the tax on tofu and screw people that enjoy that......lol "

FourLeafClover wrote on Mar 7, 2009 4:15 AM:

" This just cracks me right up. Did Mr. Van Gorder watch his idols in Washington parade baseball players in one after one and waste tax payer dollars on something that was none of their business and decide..... heck I can do samje thing with the gay marriage doohickey.....lol WHAT PLANET AM I ON!!! "

Napan since 1965 wrote on Mar 7, 2009 6:27 AM:

" Wow! 59 comments already, and it's only 6:20 a.m.

In my opinion, Mark Van Gorder should NOT be allowed to push this resolution through the Napa City Council.

The initial reactions of the other City Council members were right on!!!

Add my vote against Van Gorder to the large and growing list. "

Bauhausfan wrote on Mar 7, 2009 6:51 AM:

" I love hearing the argument about the vote being the "will" of the people.

It is really quite simple, it is one thing to vote on an issue that expands rights for everyone, than to vote on an issue that denies rights to a small minority.

I mean really, how hard is it to figure this out? We have protections for minority groups for a reason.

If I proposed a law for the people of Napa County to vote on, that Jews cannot marry non-Jews, or blacks cannot marry whites, you would rightly say how insane that was. And yes, I brought up those two specific minority groups because of the historical significance of them in the not so distant past. "

since1976 wrote on Mar 7, 2009 7:26 AM:

" Krusty- it makes sense if money from tourism is more important than morals.
For some of us, no, for MORE of us, morality is more important. "

since1976 wrote on Mar 7, 2009 7:27 AM:

" Van Gorder just lost my vote. "

since1976 wrote on Mar 7, 2009 7:29 AM:

" napa_mom-I'm glad you're not my mom! "

Rocketman wrote on Mar 7, 2009 7:43 AM:

" The CALIFORNIA electorate has spoken. That should be the end of it. IF there is a legality argument, then and only then can the State Supreme Court overturn this messure. Mark, the voters of the City of Napa had their say. The City of Napa does not override the decisions of the State Populous on State issues. You have made your point, now drop it. "

fmmt47 wrote on Mar 7, 2009 7:43 AM:

" In regards to proposition 8, the people of California have spoken, why doesn't Van Gorder get it? Most of the people of California don't care if people are gay or how much money they spend in Napa County....are they going to quit coming to the Napa Valley if local politicians don't speak up about the "injustice" of proposition 8? I don't think so. Gay folks already have domestic partnership rights, why would they be stupid enough to get married? The divorce rates between hetrosexual and homosexual couples where gay marriage is legal are already extremely high.....marriage just means that more divorce attorneys will have more victims to prey upon and the civil court dockets will be backed up more than they already are. "

noblindershere wrote on Mar 7, 2009 8:11 AM:

" oh my little small town Napa folks are at it again on this blog. The world is so much bigger than you. Its not about "gay rights" its about human rights. Funny, but SF passed a city ordinance years ago related to the rights of their gay population. I'm happy to see that atleast one of our local politicians has the guts to speak up against the money that made prop 8 happen. Napa county didn't support it and neither do I. "

reneefannin wrote on Mar 7, 2009 8:14 AM:

" My family and I applaud Councilman Van Gorder and the city of Napa for considering taking a stand on this hateful Proposition that is at its core intended to divide, label and segregate. It is clearly a city issue as anything that affects the citizens of a city becomes a city issue. Silence in the face of discrimination is consent. "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those, who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality"- Dante. Thank you Councilman Van Gorder and thank you to the city of Napa for your NO vote and for your consideration of taking a solid stand against discrimination of some of your more vulnerable citizens. I am proud to be raising my children in this valley and trust that when this comes before the Council that you will continue to stand strong in the face of civil rights violations no matter how well disguised they may be. "

Paddy wrote on Mar 7, 2009 8:28 AM:

" Not only did Van Gorder lose the two votes in my house but all major CA newspapers are reporting that Prop. 8 will be upheld in the CA Supreme Court. Their is still hope for the electoral system after all. "

watchman wrote on Mar 7, 2009 8:55 AM:

" Gay marriage is a morality issue (as are polygomists...) not a minority issue? America has become so tied up in what is political correct they have pushed aside morals that have sustained this great nation. Heterosexual marriage has a traditional procreative orientation, and has proven to be very beneficial to society, because it leads to stable families and to children who grow up to be productive adults--history 'proves' this! Where are the awesome homosexual marriage nations?

Let's remember that one thing we know for sure is that these homosexual advocates will not 'lighten up' or lessen their demands to only get 'their way'! There is 'NO END' to their 'I demand list'. As was displayed by gay marraige advocates in Napa and throughout our state, beforehand and in the wake of their defeat with Prop 8: destroying yard signs, vicious personal attacks based on campaign contribution databases, business boycotts, disrupting church services, even beatings...

Also, parents, are you very aware of their Planned Parenthood etc. programs in your Napa and America's schools to 'indoctrinate' your children with their agenda? Wake Up--before it's too late and do not support people like Mark Van Gorder! "

winewoman wrote on Mar 7, 2009 9:11 AM:

" Perhaps the economy needs to get even worse for folks here in Napa to realize that business - and cities with a commodity like ours - need to be friendly to all demographics - particularly those with tremendous spending power. Look, big business was on this bandwagon long ago - marketing specifically to this demongraphic. Saab, Subaru, VW, Jeep, Saturn, Mercedes-Benz, Lexus and Cadillac have all target the gay consumer but it was Ford's Jaguar, Volvo and Land Rover that were the first American-owned brands to place gay-specific ads that included GLBT messaging and imagery in both print and online. The City of Napa should be concerned about our local busines, our commodity - tourism and wine. Let's not forget that Napa's wine industry generates nearly $11 billion annually to our local economy. Van Gorder is doing the right thing for the future of our local economy. That's his job. "

bettye wrote on Mar 7, 2009 9:13 AM:

" I am just curious .. why was this even put on the ballot ?? The Supreme court will decide ,so why didn't they just bypass the vote and let them make the decision ??? "

Raven wrote on Mar 7, 2009 9:16 AM:

" At what point did you guys become the arbiters of free speech in this town? Are you so afraid same sex marriage and homosexuality that you cannot tolerate even a discussion...your reactions to Van Gorder even bringing up the subject are bordering on the hysterical. Get a grip. "

HaveFaith wrote on Mar 7, 2009 9:52 AM:

" Van Gorder - I hope to never see you represent Napa in the future. Need I remind you - the people voted and they don't want same sex marriage in California!!! "

winewoman wrote on Mar 7, 2009 10:00 AM:

" antipc - deny all you want, call the facts skewed - but they are the result of unbiased research. I'll tell Reuters that they're wrong 'cuz you said.

napaoldguy - read my post again - I said nothing remotely close to that.

To those calling to impeach, recall Van Gorder - I would say - the Napa majority defeated Prop 8. I would expect that same Napa majority to support Van Gorder. He's taking a position on a very controversial issue (did you notice the other Councilpersons riding the fence). This is a business issue for Napa, not merely a social one. "

Bauhausfan wrote on Mar 7, 2009 10:05 AM:

" To Rocketman and everyone else who says the electorate has spoken.

I am so glad you feel that way because in the near future, I can guarantee you that there will be a proposition on the ballot that will be the opposite of 8 and it will pass, and when it does, you will be saying something completely different to support your view.

It is your argument now, but it will be something different in the future.

If you look at demographics and attitudes about issues that are hot button wedge issues now, the younger people are, the less they care about your sexuality or a great many other things. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 7, 2009 10:10 AM:

" You've heard the expression, "Nero fiddles while Rome burns."
Now we have Napa's version: City Council diddles with issues that don't concern them while the potholes in the local streets get deeper and deeper!
Sounds like we need to elect some new council members who will keep their nose to the grindstone. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 7, 2009 10:16 AM:

" "EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"

Even the killer-rapists on death row, napa_mom? Be careful of what you wish for. Everything has limits, rights aren't absolute. "

VERUM wrote on Mar 7, 2009 10:26 AM:

" Against Same Sex Marriage? Do not have one. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 7, 2009 10:38 AM:

" Van Gorder wrote: "A council resolution on this issue will not interfere with street and sidewalk repair."

Mark, perhaps if you spent less time meddling with issues that don't concern the city council you would have more time figuring out how to expedite those street repairs. We elected you to the city council for one reason, to handle the bread and butter issues that are rightfully within the city's purview. While you're at it, why not endorse Napa's H8 Wall of Shame website too, so we'll all know where you really stand. I assure you I will remember this the next time I'm in the voting booth. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 7, 2009 11:09 AM:

" You wrote: "I grabbed the female end of one hose and mated it with the female connector of another hose. I turned on the water and I got all wet."

That reminds me. The Creator could have made us humans hermaphroditic. In that case, genderless marriage laws would have made perfect sense. But he made us male and female for a reason. Who are we to suddenly decide that gender is not pertinent to marriage? "

FormerPrunePicker wrote on Mar 7, 2009 11:13 AM:

" Lets imagine sitting on the Supreme Court...."Oh I have this resolution from Mark Van Gorder and the Napa City Council, therefore Prop 8 must be overturned." Can the next resolution the City Council writes abolish taxes? Then maybe the City Council can do something about the war in Iraq. The people voted on Prop 8. The City Council has many other problems that Mark needs to focus on. "

TAXPAYER wrote on Mar 7, 2009 11:27 AM:

" Mark van Gorder, do what the Voters told you to do and shut up.
Do your job, run the City infrastructure the most efficent way possible. Be responsible and use common sense on how you spend our money.
Stay out of politics.
Have a nice day. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 7, 2009 11:47 AM:

" The matter is in the hands of the state Supreme Court. Let them do their job. This is not the time for a city politician to be grandstanding. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 7, 2009 11:51 AM:

" Taxpayer,
Hellooooo, Van Gorder IS doing what the voters are telling him - how disrespectful and rude of you to tell ANYONE to shut up. We're seeing all kinds of bully talk and threats here in this blog, aren't we. Van Gorder is being responsible and looking out for Napa's business interests. Uh, and running the City and sitting as a city councilperson is politics. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 7, 2009 11:58 AM:

" JR. Even killers on death row are allowed to get married, while the gay law enforcement people who helped to put and keep them there, are not.

While there is a compelling state interest in keeping criminals locked up, there is no need to deny law abiding, tax paying, gay citizens from enjoying the legal protections and status everyone else has (including straight criminals). "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 7, 2009 11:58 AM:

" I wish our politicians would worry less about State-wide issues and mow the grass in front of my house.

The grass is growing in our paved street. I believe mowing the city streets will beome more and more of a city need, since they're more concerned about overturning the will of the people state-wide than worrying about city infrastructure.

Oh, wait. We are electing politicians who want to go against the will of the people. My guess we'll have to mow our streets ourselves.

What a misguided sense of priorities. "

snowmom2 wrote on Mar 7, 2009 12:23 PM:

" Good job Mark! It takes a strong man to stand up against all the oppostional people in this town. Napa is already biased against people compared to other cities, and it's about time someone stood up and helped people with their own values. We should not jodge people because of their color, race, age, size or sexual orientation. Unfortunately, we do, and I applaud Mark to helping those in need. "

VERUM wrote on Mar 7, 2009 1:37 PM:

" I am a voter, do your job Mark, and draft the resolution, get it passed, so everyone will get over it.

Lincoln was not to popular with his views, even if white slave owners were having relations with black women who themselves could not legally marry. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Mar 7, 2009 1:53 PM:

" I will NOT be voting for Mark Van Gorder again, and neither will my family. We are so very disappointed in him.

It is really inappropriate to suggest such a resolution, considering this a State issue that is currently being decided by the CA Supreme Court.

The PEOPLE of CA have spoken twice on this issue, and twice they voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

Homosexuals do not want equal rights, they want EXTRA rights. Under CA law, they have the same substantive rights as heterosexuals.

They have no right to change the age-old definition of a word to suit their lifestyle choice, which many regard as immoral. "

Bauhausfan wrote on Mar 7, 2009 3:10 PM:

" Taxpayer - "Mark van Gorder, do what the Voters told you to do and shut up. "

What voters told him to "shut up" and who has the right to tell someone to shut up anyway?

Or is this just another version of "conservative" democracy, which is very different from what the rest of us consider it to be? "

Mz-D wrote on Mar 7, 2009 3:44 PM:

" The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have never passed if it had been brought before the voters. Like it, Prop 8 should have never been a ballot measure. Tyranny of the majority
alive and well in 2008. Mark van Gorder is a wise an admirable man – doing exactly the job we have elected him to do. Taking a stand to preserve the liberty and equality of all citizens should be on the top of every elected officials agenda. "

Steelhead wrote on Mar 7, 2009 3:47 PM:

" Oh God, save me from the sanctmonious Mark Van Gorder, trying to be the Gavin Newsom of Napa.

Fix my sidewalks and streets and quit trying to be something other than a city council person!!! "

Fire Mike wrote on Mar 7, 2009 3:59 PM:

" OK, let’s see if I have this straight (pardon the pun): California voters decide to nullify the principle of equality under the law, and to strip from my friends the right to marry. When I speak out against this decision, I am called a whiner, told to “get over it,” and instructed to move if I don’t agree with “the will of the people.” Now, a City Council member introduces a resolution to formally state “the will of the people” of the city of Napa, and those same folks are howling in indignation, even calling for the impeachment of the Council member. One writer has gone so far as to call for Mr. van Gorder to “shut up” and “stay out of politics.” Curious, to say the least.

I am heartened to see Mr. van Gorder taking a stand for equality. The point of such a resolution is not to influence the court (as some have suggested). Nor is this “political grandstanding.” Rather, the point is to make a formal declaration that Napans believe in equality and dignity. The citizens of Napa made this clear with their votes in November. I hope the rest of the Council will agree. "

Rocketman wrote on Mar 7, 2009 4:35 PM:

" Buahausfan................IF AND WHEN, the electorate changes the vote, I will accept it. I have stated from the beginning regarding this issue that I have no problem with gays and lesbians having the SAME LEGAL RIGHTS as what men and woman have when they marry. Just keep marriage between a man and a woman and call everything else a civil union. What is wrong with that if everyone has the same rights. You folks keep calling it an equality issue. "

freeport56 wrote on Mar 7, 2009 4:51 PM:

" The City of Napa has no place in the State Supreme Court suit. The issue before the court is the citizens right to pass an amendment to the state constitution. It all comes down to the three simple words that were written so long ago, but anger 3/4 of the world "We the People".

Van Gorder should resign and go home and reflect on his very poor decision to become involved in a matter he knows very little about. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 7, 2009 4:59 PM:

" Hey Reason-ator - the hose thing - that must be heterosexual guy humor. Judging from the comments, I don't think everyone got the joke. "

zist707 wrote on Mar 7, 2009 5:00 PM:

" Since when was marriage an "EXTRA" right? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 7, 2009 5:34 PM:

" Rocketman.
Even if domestic partnerships covered all of the rights of marriage, and they don't, they would still not be equal. The US Supreme court recognized that "separate but equal" opportunities created a feeling of inferiority for the minorities being segregated, and that this feeling of segregation could cause permanent emotional injury".

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

Additionally, the court found "the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples." (p.118) "

John Richards wrote on Mar 7, 2009 5:44 PM:

" "Since when was marriage an "EXTRA" right?"

Do you really need it spelled out?
Everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.
To marry someone of the same sex would be an EXTRA right, not currently legal. "

napascot wrote on Mar 7, 2009 5:55 PM:

" Equal Rights for all is just that......RIGHT.

The day will come when those who stand in opposition of this most basic human right will be left with only embarrassment and shame in place of their current small minded and bigoted arguments.

This issue is indeed the new civil rights campaign for this generation and although it may take some additional time and education the outcome is inevitable. "

calisa wrote on Mar 7, 2009 6:09 PM:

" voted on....twice!!!!!

I cannot even read this whole article, the entire topic just ticks me off! Voted on.........twice!!!! again people....asked and answered!

I am sorry if the end result was not what some wanted but it appears to be what the "majority" wanted. I am so tired of the feet stomping, whining and temper tantrums because some did get there way. Hello....welcome to life, sometimes you don't get what you want. If everytime the minority of the vote did get there way & someone wanted to fight it and overturn the majority vote, we would have NO laws at all! Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't prop 8 all about a marriage (between a man and a woman only) and then those who opposed it turn it into a civil rights thing??? In my immmediate family I have lesbians and I am still all for yes on 8. Not that I oppose them being together, cause I don't but its about marriage between a man and a woman as intended to be...plain and simple. "

jmo wrote on Mar 7, 2009 6:51 PM:

" None of my 3, yes 3, posts last night made the grade or hit the mark if you catch my drift.
So, Mark, I would kingly appreciate you spending your precious time more city business like fixing the potholes on A street etc. than this attention getting action (by the way mostly negative).
I so wish you would leave state issues to our local state politicians.
No one is going to throw a pie your way (smiling here!!!), but we would sincerely appreciate your taking care of pressing local business FIRST!!! "

jmo wrote on Mar 7, 2009 7:02 PM:

" So winewoman when was the last time you purchased a car from your nmaed auto makers? just wondering.
Gee aren't they the ones mentioned as mostly likely to go BK?
Some people/companies are so desparate/greedy they will saddle up with.... "

funnyme wrote on Mar 7, 2009 7:12 PM:

" Why isn't councilman Van Gordon debating with the people commenting here?

Cat got your tongue? "

jmo wrote on Mar 7, 2009 7:15 PM:

" reason-ator: LOL hose comment. Boy if that dosen't say it all. "

Raven wrote on Mar 7, 2009 7:21 PM:

" but JR...you would be able to marry some of the same sex if you wanted as well...all would be....so where is the extra part? "

Raven wrote on Mar 7, 2009 7:27 PM:

" MNV, you said you wouldn't vote for him again....what made you vote for him in the first place?...

In case anyone is interested, city councils have been taking stands on statewide issues for about as long as there have been city councils....nothing new in what Van Gorder is doing "

jmo wrote on Mar 7, 2009 7:38 PM:

" Congrats to all posters for not hating as in the past. Yes we do disagree on this issue, but generally the comments ahve been without hate.

This post, if posted, was written at @ 7:37 pm. Just wanted to test the waters on the NVR's weekend response time to postings. "

Raven wrote on Mar 7, 2009 7:42 PM:

" funnyme...would you considering the tone of some of the posts here? "

manxkat wrote on Mar 7, 2009 7:52 PM:

" I gotta hand it to you Mr. Van Gorder. You apparently have the Napa Register in your pocket because it is clear that they are highly censoring the comments directed at you on this issue. Must be nice to run unopposed and have the local newspaper defending you. Hard to do any wrong no matter how hard you try. "

jmo wrote on Mar 7, 2009 8:17 PM:

" Raven,
Now is not the time for any city council members to spend/waste any time on any thing other than the or most pressing city issues...Napa Pipe, gang crime, potholes etc. (no particular order and they have not addressed one with any sucess). "

GerryKP wrote on Mar 7, 2009 8:25 PM:

" GO MARK! Thank you for your voice and your opinion!! Stick to what YOU feel is right. Equal rights for EVERYONE! "

NVR Brian Kennedy wrote on Mar 7, 2009 8:59 PM:

" manxkat: Your three attempted comments were purely personal attacks. If you want to post an opinion regarding the issues, you are welcome to join the conversation. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 7, 2009 9:20 PM:

" jmo - not sure what my car buying habits have to do with this. But, since you didn't like the examples I provided, here are a few more. These companies are not only gay friendly, but they have adopted strong policies on diversity and inclusion. BestBuy, Borders, Sears, Target, Owens Corning, Whirlpool, American Express, Charles Schwab, Citi, Gap, JC Penney, Levi Strauss, Nike, Macys, Nordstrom, Starbucks, BP, Chevron, Shell, Campbell Soup, Clorox, Coca Cola, Kraft, General Mills - the list goes on.
Source: Human Rights Campaign hrc(dot)org

Like it or not, American business and the American workplace is changing and moving forward. They see the value of the gay demographic as consumers and as employess. Businesses are adapting to the changing needs of our people. In order to remain viable, the City of Napa needs to adapt as well. We have a commodity - tourism and wine - which infuses $11 billion into our economy annually. I'll say it again, this is not only a social issue, but an important business issue as well.

jmo, enough with your consipiracy theories - several of my posts didn't make it through either - and my opinions are polar opposite of yours. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 7, 2009 9:38 PM:

" jmo wrote," Raven, Now is not the time for any city council members to spend/waste any time on any thing other than the or most pressing city issues...Napa Pipe, gang crime, potholes etc. (no particular order and they have not addressed one with any sucess). "

jmo, add to your list REVENUE. Revenue now and planning for revenue in the future. Have you heard that tasting room sales are down significantly? Have you heard that wine consumption is down? Have you heard that tourism is down? Have you heard of the recent layoffs here in Napa? Have you heard that we're in a recession, staring down the barrel at a depression? Revenue, revenue, revenue. Without tourism and wine revenue, this town becomes - well. you know. "

Rocketman wrote on Mar 7, 2009 9:58 PM:

" Well I guess we will all see what the Supreme Court has to say on this issue............ "

littlered56 wrote on Mar 7, 2009 10:00 PM:

" I started working for American Express 25 years ago...it was then and is now an equal oppertinitey employee. I have worked with Gays, Straights, twisted and even some gay republicans who pay taxes. It is not some new thing equalitey in the work place is in place in most large companies and it works well. We can all get along in the work place and remember a persons pesonal relationship and who they marry is their business. Its none of anyones business who marries who..it is all of ours business how we practice equality for all people. "

jmo wrote on Mar 7, 2009 10:04 PM:

" Winewoman, just to clarify my non-posted posts were on the nasty side I admit. What say you about yours? Now let's all remain civil.

Peace, love and happiness to all regardless of our feelings. That's why there is chocolate and vanilla. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 7, 2009 10:27 PM:

" jmo, actually my posts were inappropriate comments/jokes about Reason-ator's hose (er, his post about the hose connection thing). hahahaha "

Mr. Feasor wrote on Mar 7, 2009 10:52 PM:

" Once again, wow.

This article is about whether the city council should adopt a resolution. It's not about whether Prop 8 should remain in force.

Were that the case, I would have mentioned that there are more constitutional underpinnings which support gay marriage than a woman's right to choose (for example).

But I still maintain that the city council should stick to city business. Otherwise, it's just political grandstanding.

But the insensitivity of many comments here is disquieting (to say the least). "

jmo wrote on Mar 7, 2009 11:02 PM:

" "winewoman, ok your right. Many of the auto makers you mentioned are about to go under and they are all pandering to all who will shop/buy from them. Yes, I made a cheap shot on my part. I understand and
Don’t blame them. However, your comments are untrue to some degree. Although I think you listed several companies that advertise as you say, they do not do so on a national basis; perhaps they do advertise a very local targeted basis. And, yes, I don't blame them. After all, it is business. I like the way you the avoided my question. Clever; but not note worthy.
Please remember these companies are not and should not be in the prop 8
fight. We all respect every one’s civil rights. This proposition is about definitions not rights. Oh, you and others will color it otherwise. I doubt you will get one national company to respond; nice attempt.
Ask President Obama and any major NYSE corporation where they
Stand on Prop 8(please don¹t forget almost every major NYSE corporation provides domestic partnership benefits regardless of etc.). "

fishfry wrote on Mar 7, 2009 11:04 PM:

" Bad move Mr. Van Gorder, I will not vote for you again. I wish I was going to be around to attend the March 17 meeting.

Gays can AND SHOULD have equal rights without marriage, We the People can write new laws allowing equal treatment for gays in a civil union.

Marriage has always been a civil union between a man and woman. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.

Say what you want, I don't care if you disagree - we cannot redefine a word just to be PC.

Hey that rhymed! "

savenapa wrote on Mar 7, 2009 11:56 PM:

" equalnotspecial-

That is what we are saying- that homosexual unions are not of equal dignity. If we thought they were we would never have opposed.

But what do I know? I'm just a back-woods okie chewin on a piece of straw. The world will be better off when I'm gone, and my opinions with me. (or some would say)

My children have gay approval crammed down their throat at NVUSD. I continually monitor this attempt to socially indoctrinate the mailable minds of my children. That's why it's anticipated that the future holds homosexuality to be admired. The pro gay agenda is to indoctrinate the children while parents are at work trusting the state to better raise their kids. I've heard "educators" deny this agenda. However, when I ask my four children that are spaced between elementary through high school, "what did you learn today" I receive a startling report.

Some say that the "Medical community" and "research proves" that we had it wrong, that homosexuality is actually quite healthy. I work in the medical field. Ive witnessed dangerous practices by gays and consequences of. It is heartbreaking. They actually mean the psychological community, which is not pure science at all. It is more of an art form riddled with subjectivity and agendas of it's own, as demonstrated through so called studies by the likes of Kinsey who was himself a homosexual. Hardly an impartial researcher.

And DNA research? We trace genetic fingerprints to behavior. Should we accept behavior because of this? We study the genes of the worst criminals and find fingerprints that align with their behavior. We wouldn't dare say their behavior is acceptable because of programming. Current studies are not conclusive and designed to persuade. "

Napa right wrote on Mar 8, 2009 12:00 AM:

" WHO ARE YOU KIDDING???? Alot of you are stating that the majority of Napa voted against Prop 8, and so you think the Council should stand up for that. Yet, the majority of California voted against it but yet you think that should be overturned........ You make no sense...... Just because someone disagrees with what you say you call them bigots, yet if you disagree with us, your politicially correct......
Mark... if you would stick to important issues for Napa, then we wouldnt have traffic problems, gangs, sidewalk issues, more business coming in... and so on .... and so on....... You are supposted to represent the WHOLE of Napa, not just a percentage....... Resign or represent ALL of Napa "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 8, 2009 12:37 AM:

" I'm glad some people recognized my attempt at humour to try and lighten up the discussion.

It started when we were discussing electrical connectors and the possibility of having to redefine them. I really was trying to make it easier to understand by using the water hose principle, and the 'hose' part was kinda inadvertant. But I'll take credit for it if it doesn't confuse the principle. "

Raven wrote on Mar 8, 2009 1:50 AM:

" why shouldn't they be in the prop 8 fight jmo? Unless you are saying businesses and churches shouldn't be in the fight for Prop 8 either....

as for the council agenda, jmo....I don't see anything that says what the city council has to focus on...kind of up to the council...and if you don't like their actions or lack of actions, you vote them out....but to tell them they cannot discuss something that affects the citizens of Napa because you disagree with it, that strikes me as UnAmerican. "

Raven wrote on Mar 8, 2009 9:40 AM:

" "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Edmund Burke 1774 "

jmo wrote on Mar 8, 2009 10:51 AM:

" Raven,
Thx for the civics lesson. -:)
I had almost forgotten that we the people do the electing here in America. "

FormerPrunePicker wrote on Mar 8, 2009 12:06 PM:

" Per Van Gorder: "56 percent of city voters rejected it in November". The City of Napa voted, and 56 percent rejected it. Period. Is Van Gorder representing only the 44%? "

Fire Mike wrote on Mar 8, 2009 1:13 PM:

" PrunePicker - Just for clarification: 56% of Napa voters rejected Prop 8, not the sentiments expressed in the resolution. Van Gorder's proposal expresses the position of most Napans. "

Raven wrote on Mar 8, 2009 1:25 PM:

" It sounds like Van Gorder is representing the 56 percent who voted against Prop 8, following the will of a majority of the people in Napa.... "

smdaba wrote on Mar 8, 2009 6:18 PM:

" I think we've broken just about every Comment Guideline listed at the bottom of the page... such a loaded issue...

Two things have been on my mind.

1) Mr. Van Gorder has voiced his opinion, an opinion that reflects the views of a population of Napa. That is no reason for a recall. Don't those who are calling for his recall/resignation etc have other council people who agree with them?

*2) An overwhelming number of people (a majority in fact) in the American South fanatically approved of Segregation and Jim Crow laws. A majority voted in California to outlaw gay marriage and remove a right earned by the gay community. Woe betide us if we become a country ruled by the tyranny of a majority. "

napamama wrote on Mar 9, 2009 9:29 AM:

" I'm proud that Mark Van Gorder has put himself in the line of fire to stand up for human rights.

We have already learned that "separate but equal" is not.

We are supposed to support equality, though as a country (and as a city!) we have fallen down and scraped our knees.

We should not be able to vote to take away or prevent human rights. "

aknra wrote on Mar 9, 2009 9:45 AM:

" Now we see the tyrrany of the minority in action. "

Raven wrote on Mar 9, 2009 12:06 PM:

" what tyranny? He is asking for a discussion on a resolution showing support for a segment of Napa citizens; has it passed yet in the middle of the night?...(and in case you forgot, support for Prop 8 was in the minority in Napa, no votes were 55.6 percent, yes votes were 44.4)

so now, who is trying for a tyranny of the minority? "

cedwardswine wrote on Mar 10, 2009 12:11 AM:

" mark,

Thank you and sorry for weighing in late. You are a hero as an individual who has no personal stake in this fight and much at risk for taking on a stand that can be such a lightening rod. My parter Scott and I are very proud of having supported you last election and will support you in the future. Leadership is missing in many businesses and government institutions yours stands out.

Thanks again Chris Edwards "

CaliGirl wrote on Mar 10, 2009 2:37 PM:

" I will go on record one more time.....I am against gay marriages......however I support civil unions for all, this way everone has equal rights under the law and we don't have to get into a religious debate......remember seperation of church and state, this is one of those issues......Napa needs to stay out of this fight......unless of course they want to support civil unions.....now that I can get behind.

Personally I feel marriage is between a man and a woman.....period......! "

jmo wrote on Mar 10, 2009 3:30 PM:

" I second CaliGirl. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 10, 2009 7:11 PM:

" CaliGirl. I'm glad you support civil unions. Surely by now though, you have read about the many ways that separate but equal is not really equal. It causes harm to those being separated.

I'm not sure you quite understand the idea of separation of Church and State though. By passing 8, the many churches who support marriage equality were denied the right to sanction those marriages in their churches. 8 actually restricted religious expression and freedom by taking away the right of some religious groups to practice their religion as they see fit. Allowing those churches to continue to marry who they see fit would not, however, force it on those who don't. Failure to pass 8 would not have taken away any religious freedom, while passing 8 did take away religious freedom.

Additionally, I fully support your right to live your life as you see fit. No one is forcing you into marriage with anyone you don't want to marry.

Selfishness is not living your life the way you see fit. It is forcing others to live their lives the way you see fit. "

cab e-girl wrote on Mar 10, 2009 7:30 PM:

" Once again, dad's have your daughters divorce their husbands so that you can marry your former son-in-laws. Mom's, have your son's divorce their wives so that you can marry their former wife. When you pass on, your daughter/son-in-law can remarry your off-spring and avoid paying estate taxes. Game, set, match! "

equalnotspecial wrote on Mar 11, 2009 9:26 AM:

" cab e-girI. I suppose it is easy to trivialize the most important relationship a person can have when you are not directly affected. Please realize however that stigmatizing people and their relationships causes harm. Or is that your intent? "

valleylocal wrote on Mar 11, 2009 10:06 AM:

" Mark - I applaud your efforts to respect the rights of all Napans and Californians. Thanks for all you do to try to bring Napa out of its dark ages mentality. "

jfz wrote on Mar 13, 2009 8:34 AM:

" Napa City Councilman Mark van Gorder is in a minority (being a "progressive" type politician in Napa). It's time to have the state Supreme Court overturn Mr. Gorder's role on the Napa City Council - May you be blessed with a speedy departure, Mark! "

Bauhausfan wrote on Mar 13, 2009 10:45 AM:

" JFZ - If Mark is in such a "minority" in being a "progressive" type in Napa why did Napa vote no on Prop 8?

I happen to know Mark and we have had many discussions about many issues and I am not sure he would even use the word progressive to describe himself. I can tell you, in general, I am to the left of Mark. "

John Richards wrote on Mar 13, 2009 8:55 PM:

" Bauhausfan wrote " If Mark is in such a "minority" in being a "progressive" type in Napa why did Napa vote no on Prop 8."

Check the handwriting on the wall. Although many moderates voted against Prop 8, they are not supporting what Mark is promoting. One sign of that is the Register's board which recommended a No vote on Prop 8, yet came out against Mark's grandstanding. I suspect only the far left would support Mark in this. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 14, 2009 6:09 PM:

" cab-e-girl, What??!!?? "

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: