St. Helena approves gay marriage resolution

Home » News » Local

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Comment

By JESSE DUARTE
For the Register

Proposition 8 coverage

August 19th, 2009

Judge sets January trial date for Prop. 8 case

July 16th, 2009

Caution urged in repeal of gay marriage ban

June 30th, 2009

Judge likely won’t grant Prop. 8 injunction

St. Helena coverage

October 31st, 2009

Upvalley recall election set

October 26th, 2009

$8 million donation to St. Helena Hospital

October 21st, 2009

St. Helena schools may ask to extend bond

October 5th, 2009

Coolest thing on four wheels

October 4th, 2009

St. Helena may scrap business caps

8:30 a.m.By a 3-1 vote, the St. Helena City Council put itself on record Tuesday in support of gay marriage and in opposition to all forms of discrimination.

Councilmember Eric Sklar’s resolution “affirming the equality of all families” and supporting gay marriage passed with Sklar, Bonnie Schoch and Sharon Crull in favor. Mayor Del Britton voted against it, and Councilmember Catarina Sanchez abstained.

Sklar acknowledged that the council’s action was purely symbolic, but “symbols matter,” he said. “When there’s injustice and discrimination, speak out against it whenever and wherever you can.”

Schoch agreed. “If it wasn’t for people thinking that maybe one person could make a difference, there would be very few changes,” she said.

“I think 40 years from now we’ll look back on this and think, ‘How could they have not thought that same-sex marriage was OK?’” Crull added.

Almost 64 percent of St. Helena voters voted against Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage and defined it as being between a man and a woman. The measure, which passed statewide, has been challenged and is currently being reviewed by the California Supreme Court.

Britton and Sanchez didn’t address gay marriage directly, but they pointed out that Proposition 8 is the law of the land.

“I’m going to abstain only because I will wait for the court to come back with whatever decision it makes,” said Sanchez.

Britton agreed that the council should defer to the court process.

“I think it’s very much inappropriate for this city council to take an action which is in direct opposition to existing law,” said Britton. “We can’t individually select the laws we want to abide by, and the ones we like we keep. That’s where anarchy comes from.”

Jonathan Eastman from the St. Helena First Presbyterian Church, Tracy Krumpen from the Napa County Democratic Central Committee and Deb Stallings from the Napa Valley Equality Coalition — who last year received the first same-sex marriage license in Napa County along with her partner Carol Whichard — urged the council to adopt the resolution. No one spoke against it.

A similar resolution was introduced to the Napa City Council by Councilmember Mark Van Gorder, but it died for lack of a second.

The issue attracted the attention of the Bay Area media and led to whispers of a potential boycott of Napa, or the entire Napa Valley, by some gay rights supporters.

On April 7 the Yountville Town Council approved a resolution similar to St. Helena’s.

98 comment(s)

shareathought wrote on Apr 15, 2009 8:43 AM:

" Way to go!

With Yountville and St. Helena leading the way, maybe the rest of the valley will soon understand equality for all. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Apr 15, 2009 9:11 AM:

" Thank you St. Helena for affirming the community standards of equality and fairness under the law. It is comforting to know you have chosen to support everyone's full humanity, everyone's ability to love, and everyone's value in the your community. "

realnewnapa wrote on Apr 15, 2009 9:18 AM:

" yea!!!!! these are times of change!!!!!

now lets get all of california!!!!

yeaaaaaa!!!! the end of discrimination!!!!

lets have equality!!!!! "

Proud to Live Here wrote on Apr 15, 2009 9:19 AM:

" Thank you St. Helena, from the bottom of my heart! You have given me the most important gift I have ever recieved. You have taken away a piece of my fear, a fear that tells me I must assimilate or I will be raped, beaten, drug nude behind a car and left to die on a lonely road. A fear that tells me I must hide or lose my job, my family, my friends. A fear that I will always hide when I look in the mirror. A fear that I will always be less than my neighbor.
Thank You St. Helena for saying that I am not, and that in this town, I am safe, loved, respected and that my community wishes me no harm.
Thank You. "

reason-ator wrote on Apr 15, 2009 9:22 AM:

" Oh, goodie........

let the alienations on both sides begin now.

How about a resolution about our government borrowing a trillion dollars from China ? "

counterhate wrote on Apr 15, 2009 9:28 AM:

" Great! Love is in the air. (up-Valley) "

napaoldguy wrote on Apr 15, 2009 10:07 AM:

" What a waste of time. Don't they have something better to do with their time. "

Fire Mike wrote on Apr 15, 2009 10:22 AM:

" In an amazing display of predictive ability, this was posted on the NVR blog last week:

"John Richards wrote on Apr 8, 2009 12:04 PM:

" makeapoint wrote: "Councilman Sklar's proposal will not bring on a boycott. It will, in fact avoid one if passed."

First of all, the proposal won't pass. I'm sure Sklar knew that when he introduced his proposal."

Any more predictions, JR? Please? Pretty please?

(I still respect you. I just couldn't pass up the opportunity for a tiny little gloat. Please forgive me.) "

MikeK wrote on Apr 15, 2009 10:33 AM:

" So I'm wondering, since my last comment on the subject wasn't deemed worthy of posting by the powers that be, how the Register decides on what is "news" and how it gets reported.

Considering that Alan Gordan, superintendent of St. Helena Schools retired LAST WEEK, and they STILL haven't reported on THAT or the fact that the board seems set to just appoint Rob Haley as his successor rather than conduct a search, how do they determine what's "news" and when we lowly people get to read about it?

I suppose they are willing to ignore news for a week in deference to Jesse Duarte and the St. Helena Star, so they can run the story first. It would be nice though if news were reported in a timely manner. "

Raven wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:00 AM:

" Bravo St. helena

and if you can get a council member to introduce a resolution on that, reason, go for it...i'll back ya up. "

reneefannin wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:09 AM:

" Thank you Councilman Sklar and the St. Helena Council. What you did does matter. St. Helena showed the true "heart" of the Napa Valley in joining Yountville last night.

It is a beautiful thing to watch people stand up and do the right thing. "

charliesheen wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:16 AM:

" Good Grief. With issues from a severe water shortage curbing future development, to an impossible parking situation downtown, our city council decides to focus on this issue. I surely hope they feel better about themselves. "

Rick wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:18 AM:

" Not surprising from a nuclear free zone. "

Rick wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:22 AM:

" renee said "It is a beautiful thing to watch people stand up and do the right thing." That's true, when it really is the right thing. "

Rick wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:29 AM:

" 'Scuse me, I better amend that: Not surprising from an anti-railroad nuclear zone! "

alucawanza wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:30 AM:

" The majority of Napa County thought it really was the right thing, Rick. "

Rick wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:36 AM:

" “I think 40 years from now we’ll look back on this and think, ‘How could they have not thought that same-sex marriage was OK?’” Crull added. To clarify, it's not that it's not OK. It's that it's not marriage. "

enemyinme wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:37 AM:

" Do symbols matter Sklar? Do they?
You guys (and gals) finally got something done at city hall...and it doesn't make a lick of difference. How 'bout some substance? This is why I do not spend a dime in the town in which I live. No gas... No snacks... No grocery... Not even a newspape. I hate admitting I live Up(itty) Valley.
All my peeps are phonies : ( "

Rick wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:41 AM:

" “I think it’s very much inappropriate for this city council to take an action which is in direct opposition to existing law,” said Britton. “We can’t individually select the laws we want to abide by, and the ones we like we keep. That’s where anarchy comes from.” A highly insightful comment. Right on! "

97526 wrote on Apr 15, 2009 12:22 PM:

" SICK!!! "

NewsJunkie wrote on Apr 15, 2009 12:23 PM:

" With so many other issues in the world, why focus on something that has been addressed TWICE! The people have spoken AGAINST gay marriage. I wish people would respect the voting process. WAKE up AMERICA! "

c1067 wrote on Apr 15, 2009 12:27 PM:

" Well,now that St.Helena passed a measure allowing gay marriage the whole state should over turn it. All St.Helena has become is an extension of San Francisco. So no big surprise there. All these little insignificant counties passing of these lame measures means NOTHING. The people of the State have spoken....... Sometimes we win some and sometimes we lose some, sorry that is how life is. "

Reneefannin wrote on Apr 15, 2009 12:29 PM:

" Rick wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:41 AM:
" “I think it’s very much inappropriate for this city council to take an action which is in direct opposition to existing law,”

I think Prop 8 is inappropriate. That's why we all get to have different opinions.

ick wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:36 AM:
" “I think 40 years from now we’ll look back on this and think, ‘How could they have not thought that same-sex marriage was OK?’” Crull added. To clarify, it's not that it's not OK. It's that it's not marriage. "

Sure it is. The Presbyterian minister that married us said it was. I have a marriage certificate from the state of California. Oh yeah and then there's the two kids and the ten years of commitment to my wife....If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck...it must be a duck!:-) "

reader wrote on Apr 15, 2009 12:29 PM:

" Rick: No one is breaking the law, we are advocating for a change of law. That is called living in a democracy, e.g., free speech, etc. Apparently you prefer a different social system? "

shareathought wrote on Apr 15, 2009 12:51 PM:

" Oh, naysayer; this is just a catalyst to better times. "

nogrooveinsolano wrote on Apr 15, 2009 12:52 PM:

" As an openly gay, single black male, what I must say to the St. Helena crew who pass this resolution: RIGHT ON! And I hope that New York stat and District of Columbia get in the same groove. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Apr 15, 2009 1:01 PM:

" Oh, and I suppose it was considered anarchy to protest against slavery and segregation? Anarchy is a lack of government or order. Gay marriages disrupt neither. And the only order that is disrupted results from the disorder that the extreme right creates for the purpose of instilling fear into a populace. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Apr 15, 2009 1:10 PM:

" Prop 8 will be overturned sooner rather than later.

Then folks can go back to practicing their religion values and leaving others alone.

~Ruff "

LoGo wrote on Apr 15, 2009 1:38 PM:

" Way to go St. Helena!! "

equalnotspecial wrote on Apr 15, 2009 1:44 PM:

" The register report is misleading, and the statement by the mayor is even more misleading. The resolution does not contradict existing law. It only affirms the best traditions of a country conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal.

Here is the meat of the resolution for anyone interested in the facts:

A. The California Supreme Court is currently deliberating the validity of Proposition 8 and the legal marriages of 36,000 Californians hang in the balance, the City of St. Helena takes this opportunity to affirm the equality and validity of all families; and
B. A majority of Napa County voters rejected Proposition 8 because it takes away a fundamental human right from a minority group of people and is discriminatory at its essence; and
C. The City celebrates the vast diversity of its citizens, seeks to be a safe, healthy and tolerant place for all citizens and their families, strives to be a community that offers equal opportunity, free from hate and all forms of discrimination, and recognizes and appreciates the significant contributions of its many lesbian and gay citizens.

1. The City does not support discrimination and finds that all people regardless of gender should be able to enter into the legal contract of marriage and receive the same social and legal benefits and recognition as conferred by the State of California. "

jmo wrote on Apr 15, 2009 2:25 PM:

" This is an example of pandering to the few at its best.
What's next? The Wine Train stopping in St Helena to let off/bring back all of the boycotting gay tourists??? "

Paddy wrote on Apr 15, 2009 2:42 PM:

" This onerous decision would certainly explain yesterdays weather. "

Paddy wrote on Apr 15, 2009 2:47 PM:

" jmo, you are correct. This is all about the money. "

napa_mom wrote on Apr 15, 2009 3:15 PM:

" To jmo. Did you actively choose to be heterosexual? Do you think that one chooses to be homosexual? Now another question: Was it pandering to the few boycotting the practice of sending the black people to the back of the bus? Just because the majority votes something in to law does not make it right. "

Raven wrote on Apr 15, 2009 3:24 PM:

" pandering to the few?...almost 66 percent of St Helena voters voted against Prop 8....explain to us how that is pandering to the few, if anything not discussing it or not passing would have been pandering to the few.

Onerous, paddy?...how is this onerous?..what extra burden have you suddenly been shouldered with as a result of this resolution "

Fire Mike wrote on Apr 15, 2009 3:28 PM:

" jmo - "pandering to the few"? Did you miss the part where more than 60% of St. Helenans rejected Prop 8? Did you miss the fact that no one spoke in opposition to the resolution? Which "few" are you talking about? "

jmo wrote on Apr 15, 2009 4:47 PM:

" Raven/Fire Mike
1. The pandering was to the few in the gay community who voiced a threat of a boycott not to the local majority who voted against Prop 8. That's just kissing up.
2. Why should anyone speak in opposition? The outcome was already known. Most of prefer to wait until the Court decides the case.
napa_mom
Please don't smoke screen the issue. We are not talking about choice. We are talking about Constitutional Law and the definition of marriage. Don't offend the black community with a fruits to vegetables comparison. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 15, 2009 5:51 PM:

" Fire Mike wrote:A"ny more predictions, JR? Please?"

I admit it, my gut instinct failed me. :-(

Apparently the up-valley cities are more concerned about staying in good rapport with the upscale tourists, many of whom are favorable to the same-sex marriage viewpoint. I don't think you'll see American Canyon vote that way. :-) "

John Richards wrote on Apr 15, 2009 5:57 PM:

" alucawanza wrote: " The majority of Napa County thought it really was the right thing."

The "right thing" being the vote against Prop 8? That's not really the issue here. The issue is the inappropriateness of a city council endorsing a viewpoint that goes contrary to prevailing law, and is not even an issue under city cognizance. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 15, 2009 6:05 PM:

" reneefannin wrote: "I think Prop 8 is inappropriate. That's why we all get to have different opinions."

That's all well and good, but your appropriate remedy is to let the courts handle it. Right now it is state law. Attempting to drum up mass disrespect of state law is equivalent to mob rule. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 15, 2009 6:20 PM:

" equalnotspecialwrote: "A majority of Napa County voters rejected Proposition 8."

The law which was brought about by passage of Prop 8 is no longer some theoretical proposition, it is the current law of the land (well, California anyway). Attempting to generate mass disrespect for a state law is not an activity a city council should be engaged in. "

Raven wrote on Apr 15, 2009 7:30 PM:

" keep thinking that jmo.....no speaking against the opposition, why?...couldn't someone find a rational reason to endorse discrimination of their friends.

Not one of those whose so vehemently opposed the idea of even discussing it here on the web pages couldn't find the fortitude to speak out against it....that says volumes in and of itself.

JR, it is like the court decisions you revile .... you may have thought it inappropriate but the council didn't, and in the end they are the final arbiter of what they will and will not discuss.

BTW, JR, discussing and opposing a law you think is unjust is in the finest American traditions, not a sign of disrespect...why it is like having oh, say, a tea party to show you are upset with taxes. Ironic that the only group to legally dump anything into Boston Harbor today was a group of gay and lesbian activists protesting the inequities of federal tax laws toward same sex couples.) "

reason-ator wrote on Apr 15, 2009 8:40 PM:

" See, what'd I tell ya ?

Everybody's right, yet nobody is changing their mind. In fact, people's opinions are being cemented while they are dis-respected and dis-regarded.

I can't believe us. "

Fire Mike wrote on Apr 15, 2009 8:49 PM:

" JR – There is a difference between abiding by a law and respecting the law. Obviously neither St. Helena nor Yountville are in a position to defy Prop 8. However, that does not mean that the citizens, as represented by their city councils, must respect the law. A law whose sole purpose is to strip rights from a minority is not deserving of respect. (And please don’t trot out the tired “gays never really had the right to marry” argument. On November 3rd, gays could get married. On November 5th, they couldn’t. Call it whatever you want, but gays lost the right to marry.)

Far from deserving respect, Prop 8 deserves loud and frequent protest – from activists and ordinary citizens, and from the bodies elected to do the peoples’ business. When a minority group is attacked, it is everyone’s responsibility to point out the injustice and work to correct it. And as advocates for its citizens, a city council has every right (and I would argue, the responsibility) to take a stand in opposition to the discriminatory law. That’s not “mob rule.” Actually, the First Amendment calls it “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

And by the way, I’m willing to wager that those up-valley cities are less concerned about staying in good rapport with the upscale tourists than they are with responding to the wishes of their citizens. Let’s hope Napa’s city council recognizes the opportunity they squandered, and decides to reconsider their “not a city issue” stance. (But since I learn from others’ mistakes, I won’t be making any predictions.) ;-) "

John Richards wrote on Apr 15, 2009 10:08 PM:

" Raven wrote: "discussing and opposing a law you think is unjust is in the finest American traditions, not a sign of disrespect."

Informal discussion among citizens is fine, that's what we do here. It is an entirely different matter when you have a city council endorse a formal resolution that not only goes contrary to state law, but is also a slap in the face of a large segment of local citizens who voted in favor of that law. City councils are supposed to uphold laws. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 15, 2009 10:15 PM:

" Fire Mike wrote: "that does not mean that the citizens, as represented by their city councils, must respect the law."

As a society, we can't pick and choose which laws we will respect. If we disrespect one law, it diminishes respect for the authority of all laws and the democratic process that established that law.

Also, although individual citizens are free to badmouth particular laws they don't like, a city council is an official governmental body that is supposed to promote adherence to the rule of law, not to undercut it. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 15, 2009 10:23 PM:

" Fire Mike wrote: "Far from deserving respect, Prop 8 deserves loud and frequent protest."

Again, this is no longer some theoretical proposition you are dissing; it is the law of the land, brought about through a valid democratic process. There are valid channels for bringing about changes in laws you don't like. Having city councils denouncing valid laws is not one of those channels. "

eyeamme wrote on Apr 15, 2009 10:31 PM:

" Newsjukie said "" With so many other issues in the world, why focus on something that has been addressed TWICE! The people have spoken AGAINST gay marriage. I wish people would respect the voting process. WAKE up AMERICA! ""

People have never respected the voting process. That's why some presidents have been assassinated and why measures are reintroduced, election after election. This is not a new idea, protesting the voters' decision. "

eyeamme wrote on Apr 15, 2009 10:38 PM:

" Fire Mike,

Bravo! Couldn't have put it better myself!

Way to go St. Helena! (and Yountville... again!)

Hopefully Napa will wake up sometime soon... "

Raven wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:04 PM:

" There is nothing in the resolution that goes contrary to any state law JR....and nothing in the resolution urges anyone to not obey the law. As far as valid channels..there is no place more suited for a discussion on what impacts it's citizens than a city council. "

Rick wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:47 PM:

" Sorry, guys, I guess I wasn't clear enough in quoting Councilmember Crull and Mayor Britton. But that part about St. H. being an anti-railroad nuclear free zone is mine. "

someguyinnapa wrote on Apr 16, 2009 3:58 AM:

" Jphn Richards wrote

Apparently the up-valley cities are more concerned about staying in good rapport with the upscale tourists, many of whom are favorable to the same-sex marriage viewpoint. I don't think you'll see American Canyon vote that way. :-) "

John; did you mean North Vallejo? "

Paddy wrote on Apr 16, 2009 8:35 AM:

" Raven - yes, onerous. A very small city government has decided to rebel against the will of the majority of Californians and approve a meaningless and useless resolution to, supposedly, fly in the face of those who followed the legal process of voting for a propositon that supports the sancitity of marriage between a man an woman. "

klr wrote on Apr 16, 2009 8:43 AM:

" reason-ator,

Divide and conquer. While we focus our hatred toward each other, our government fails us. "

Fire Mike wrote on Apr 16, 2009 9:02 AM:

" JR – We’ll have to agree to disagree again. Not respecting a law does not in any way diminish respect for the authority of all laws, nor for the democratic process that establishes it. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. I (and I suspect that many marriage equality supporters also feel this way) have tremendous respect for our laws and our system of government. That is why when a law such as Prop 8 passes, which so clearly violates the principle of equal protection of the laws set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment, we are compelled to speak out against it. Prop 8 is clearly discriminatory in its intent and in its application, and does not live up to the high standard of justice and liberty upon which our system of government is based. Blind adherence to an unjust law simply because it is “the law” is a recipe for disaster. But vociferous protest of injustice and inequality is in the finest American tradition. "

NewsJunkie wrote on Apr 16, 2009 9:30 AM:

" eyeamme wrote on Apr 15, 2009 10:31 PM:

" Newsjukie said "" With so many other issues in the world, why focus on something that has been addressed TWICE! The people have spoken AGAINST gay marriage. I wish people would respect the voting process. WAKE up AMERICA! ""

People have never respected the voting process. That's why some presidents have been assassinated and why measures are reintroduced, election after election. This is not a new idea, protesting the voters' decision. "

eyeamme: The problem with your statement is we the people have voted on this issue twice. The people have spoken...TWICE. Move on to other issues. I am tired of wasting our tax dollars revisiting this issue not once, not twice, but going on three times! "

NewsJunkie wrote on Apr 16, 2009 9:32 AM:

" THANK you to Del Britton for honoring and respecting the system! Kudos to You Mayor! "

Fire Mike wrote on Apr 16, 2009 9:50 AM:

" Paddy - you keep using the word "onerous." But you still haven't explained what burdens you have incurred, what new obligations you must meet, or how you're being oppressed. If you're unable to do so, I suggest you choose a new favorite word. "

Raven wrote on Apr 16, 2009 10:06 AM:

" "A very small city government has decided to rebel against the will of the majority of Californians ..."

rebel?....is there some ordinance, some law that prohibits the city council from discussing this issue?...is anyone being to to disobey the law? Are the city council members there to serve the needs of the entire state or those of its citizens?...and they are serving the needs of the majority of St. Helenans who voted against Prop 8 and discrimination. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Apr 16, 2009 10:11 AM:

" JR. That was a quote from the city resolution, not mine, though it is obviously true. It seemed that people were addressing the NVR's interpretation of the resolution without knowing what the resolution actually said, so I pasted in most of the actual resolution, so people could see what it actually said. Perhaps using quotation marks would have helped. Sorry for not doing that.

Establishing and affirming the community standards of equality and fairness is a proper role of local government. There is nothing wrong with trying to drum up mass disrespect for a law that disrespects the principals of equality and fairness and takes away the rights of a minority. Mob rule is when the majority singles out a minority for unequal treatment and discrimination in violation of the spirit of the constitution.

Those who lost equal rights and those who care about them feel we did not do an adequate job of educating the voters as to why equal rights are important should be allowed. We allowed lies and scare tactics to sway many into taking away equal rights, and now we are attempting to right that wrong. I know many will not change their minds, but I believe eventually, many will be convinced of the wisdom of establishing a safe, healthy, and tolerant place for all citizens and their families. Love will win out, eventually. "

napadramamom wrote on Apr 16, 2009 10:53 AM:

" John Richards wrote:

"The law which was brought about by passage of Prop 8 is no longer some theoretical proposition, it is the current law of the land (well, California anyway). Attempting to generate mass disrespect for a state law is not an activity a city council should be engaged in. "

Upon citing that "Bitter complaints have come in from countless places citing the provocative behavior of Jews" the German government said there was "no choice but to contain the problem through legislative measures" and adopted the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. Anti-semitism became no longer some theoretical proposition, but the law of the land.

Among them: Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad

Unwillingness to stand up in the face of such institutionalized discrimination and injustice against a singled out group is what allowed the Holocaust to happen. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 16, 2009 10:59 AM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "We allowed lies and scare tactics to sway many into taking away equal rights..."

If you believe that pro-8 voters were swayed by lies and scare tactics, you are sadly mistaken.
Also, pro-8 voters were not interested in taking away rights, only in restoring the status quo. "

Fire Mike wrote on Apr 16, 2009 12:38 PM:

" JR - the California Supreme Court found that the status quo was discriminatory. "Restoring the status quo" is nothing but a euphemism for “re-instituting discrimination.” "

oneworld77 wrote on Apr 16, 2009 1:52 PM:

" Take away rights- go ahead! no one is watching... No one will care. These silly homosexuals all chose to be what they are...is that true rightwingers? Give me a break. Did you choose to be white and born in the United States with a silver spoon in your mouth? No? Did you choose to be Hetero? No? No you didn't? Gotcha. Yes you did? Then doesn't everyone else that ISN't you deserve the same rights? Grow up and stop pushing your fundamentalist beliefs on others. Prop 8 is unconstitutional federally, and we will root out this ignorance on the state level. Be kind and tolerant of others- Increase tolerance and respect. We do for you, righty. "

VERUM wrote on Apr 16, 2009 3:59 PM:

" Was slavery and women not having the right to vote put to a majority vote? "

reneefannin wrote on Apr 16, 2009 4:09 PM:

" Paddy wrote on Apr 16, 2009 8:35 AM:
" Raven - yes, onerous. A very small city government has decided to rebel against the will of the majority of Californians and approve a meaningless and useless resolution to, supposedly, fly in the face of those who followed the legal process of voting for a propositon that supports the sancitity of marriage between a man an woman. "

Let's be clear: Prop 8 does nothing of the sort. I would love for anyone to explain to me specifically how it even affects heterosexual marriage as no group or person has been able to do that. Look at the language, Prop 8 simply takes away the right of same sex couples to receive the equivalent recognition of heterosexual couples. the way that we know that is what it did is the fact that up until the election, results were final, same sex couples could marry. Afterwards, they could not. Throughout this process, both when the marriage was legal and when it was not, I of not on heterosexual couple who claimed to have had their marriage desanctified. Does anyone else know of one? If same sex marriage took away the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, well don't you think it would be gone, cause 18,000 same sex couples are still married. "

reneefannin wrote on Apr 16, 2009 4:10 PM:

" Proud to Live Here wrote on Apr 15, 2009 9:19 AM:
" Thank you St. Helena, from the bottom of my heart! You have given me the most important gift I have ever recieved. You have taken away a piece of my fear, a fear that tells me I must assimilate or I will be raped, beaten, drug nude behind a car and left to die on a lonely road. A fear that tells me I must hide or lose my job, my family, my friends. A fear that I will always hide when I look in the mirror. A fear that I will always be less than my neighbor.
Thank You St. Helena for saying that I am not, and that in this town, I am safe, loved, respected and that my community wishes me no harm.
Thank You. "

I couldn't have said it any better except to add that neither do my kids. Ditto "

reneefannin wrote on Apr 16, 2009 4:12 PM:

" Also, pro-8 voters were not interested in taking away rights, only in restoring the status quo. "

Now that's something to be proud of. Those people that strive for the status quo have definitely made the greatest strides for all of humanity. Turn on the TV and get out the chips!! The status quo has been "restored". "

reneefannin wrote on Apr 16, 2009 4:15 PM:

" NewsJunkie wrote on Apr 16, 2009 9:32 AM:
" THANK you to Del Britton for honoring and respecting the system! Kudos to You Mayor! "

While disrespecting humanity and equality. Yes, bravo. That was so very brave. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 16, 2009 8:00 PM:

" Fire Mike wrote: " the California Supreme Court found that the status quo was discriminatory."

They are not God. The California Supreme Court has been found wrong before. They will be issuing a 'correction' very shortly. Stay tuned. :-) "

John Richards wrote on Apr 16, 2009 8:12 PM:

" VERUM wrote: " Was slavery and women not having the right to vote put to a majority vote?"

That would only be significant if the issue of gay marriage was similar to the issues of slavery and women's suffrage, which by any stretch of the imagination it isn't. "

Raven wrote on Apr 16, 2009 9:49 PM:

" they may not be god JR but we don't live in a theocracy so they don't need to be.

"Was slavery and women not having the right to vote put to a majority vote?"

It is on the point JR.....equal rights for african americans and women were not subject to the whims of a majority vote JR.....and tell us the last time in this country the majority granted equal rights to any one by a majority vote? "

Fire Mike wrote on Apr 16, 2009 10:26 PM:

" JR - Thank you! Another prediction!!!
;-)
On a more serious note, why is it that when the Court ruled in favor of equality "they got it wrong," but ruling in favor of discrimination will be a "correction"? How do you pick and choose which decisions are "wrong"? Do you make it up as you go, or is there some magic formula for figuring this out? "

jmo wrote on Apr 16, 2009 11:25 PM:

" Raven
I apologize for not getting back/responding to you sooner re why no one spoke out against the motion. I just got back to town. It actually is very simple most of us are all to aware of the post-passage campaign to intimidate Prop 8 supporters by a few who have posted names of donor/supporters to influence people to not patronize the businesses of prop 8 supporters. Some supporters have even been subjected to intimidation. This dose not means we aren't still hanging around. "

reneefannin wrote on Apr 17, 2009 3:30 AM:

" That would only be significant if the issue of gay marriage was similar to the issues of slavery and women's suffrage, which by any stretch of the imagination it isn't. "

It is, in fact, exactly like that. A group of people are trying to tell us that being heterosexual is superior to being gay and that somehow we deserve less than equal because of it. The fact that you cannot see that and the more you type further proves that argument as you offer up that discriminatory tone each time you post. Keep it coming. You will continue to prove our point. I especially like teh fact that you can't see the inequality of the immigration issue and believe that a gay woman, denied equal marriage rights should be deported. If we were equal, that wouldn't be happening. "

Raven wrote on Apr 17, 2009 8:08 AM:

" jmo .. .if any supporters of Prop 8 in St. Helena or Napa or Yountville have been intimidated why not report it...tell the NVR...call the cops.....instead of makes baseless charges. And I am not talking other places..here in the valley tell us of this intimidation...I will join you in condemning it but we need to have facts.

But I gather from your post that had you been here you still would not have spoken out at the meeting? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Apr 17, 2009 12:49 PM:

" While those who oppose equal rights may complain about those who have been denied equality not supporting their businesses, gay people have to worry about being bullied, beaten and killed as a result of the stigmatization used to deny equality, and perpetuated by that legal discrimination.

"An 11-year-old Massachusetts boy, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, hanged himself Monday after enduring bullying at school, including daily taunts of being gay, despite his mother's weekly pleas to the school to address the problem. This is at least the fourth suicide of a middle-school aged child linked to bullying this year."
"As was the case with Carl, you do not have to identify as gay to be attacked with anti-LGBT language." "From their earliest years on the school playground, students learn to use anti-LGBT language as the ultimate weapon to degrade their peers."

The prejudice we are all taught as children continues to be used to deny equal rights, as well as be used to harass, intimidate and justify violence against gay people. This should be a clear example of why it is important and necessary for local governments to affirm community standards of "equal opportunity, free from hate and all forms of discrimination".

Thanks again, St. Helena. Your contribution not only helps many of your citizens feel more safe, it may actually save lives. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 17, 2009 1:35 PM:

" Raven wrote: "But I gather from your post that had you been here you still would not have spoken out at the meeting?"

That would be like volunteering for your own lynching... ;-)

One need only reread the blogs written here around last November to know that Prop 8 supporters were frequently called hater, bigots, and homophobes. Who would want to be subjected to that kind of abuse in person? "

John Richards wrote on Apr 17, 2009 1:44 PM:

" I wrote "That would only be significant if the issue of gay marriage was similar to the issues of slavery and women's suffrage, which by any stretch of the imagination it isn't. "

To which Renee responded" It is, in fact, exactly like that. "

Hardly. Abolition and women's suffrage and the black civil rights movement were about real, concrete issues. The gay marriage movement is about the right to have a piece of paper called a marriage license. Not exactly the same ballpark, is it. Where is the beef? "

Raven wrote on Apr 17, 2009 3:54 PM:

" So the courage of your convictions only goes so far, JR? (and if it is just a piece paper, why do you fight so hard to prevent it...why, because you know full and well it is much, so much more than that.) "

jonb123 wrote on Apr 17, 2009 6:15 PM:

" Wow Britton, you worried about the law??? What about creating a new flood plane on Fulton Lane wuth that new project??? That won't break any laws... (Oh yeah, not after you change them for that.)But that's different, it's just property and people's lives we're destroying... Right! "

jmo wrote on Apr 17, 2009 10:16 PM:

" WOW! It is still the same O same O...who come here to voice the same O same O.....Why can't you all hold your peace until the Court decides?...I know...it is not in your nature...oh well I am going to enjoy my weekend...catch up with you later...that is the beauty of having a full and wonderful life not worrying about this law or that law ...just living live as it was comes... meant to be................ "

notalwaysright wrote on Apr 18, 2009 8:42 AM:

" "Firemike":
I have a prediction. Raven will tell everyone else how wrong they are and that everyone sjould think as she does.
Where's the choice in that Raven? "

John Richards wrote on Apr 18, 2009 3:19 PM:

" jmo wrote: ".....Why can't you all hold your peace until the Court decides?..."

I agree with you. I've been posting reluctantly, only because I don't like to see the lib arguments go unchallenged. I'm all for a truce until after we hear from the Court.
Now if we could only get the city councils to agree to the truce... "

winewoman wrote on Apr 18, 2009 8:44 PM:

" Darn those gays - get back in the closet and hush. Not so much, jmo and JR. People need to know about the painful world that exists for those who don't have the benefits that heterosexuals take for granted every day. People need to understand that homosexuality is a reality. These people raise children, seek adoption, get divorces, and have custody battles. By banning gay marriage we do the opposite of strengthening the family. It destroys families and prevents them from being created. And it crushes individuals who are torn from the children they have raised since birth. Prop 8 is cruel. And well-intentioned or not, those people who support such discriminatory laws are advocating cruelty and creating pain and destroying families. "

jmo wrote on Apr 18, 2009 11:10 PM:

" Winewoman I am with you in many respects. I just think there should be Civil Unions as an alternative for all the reasons you mentioned. And "a marriage" should continue as it has been defined since the words inception...between a man and a woman. There is nothing wrong or depriving about this historical definition since mankind has recorded history.

PS: I enjoyed your opening; Thx! "

Raven wrote on Apr 19, 2009 1:40 AM:

" reluctantly?..be interesting to see what your full efforts would..... "

winewoman wrote on Apr 19, 2009 8:59 AM:

" jmo, thanks for acknowledging that homosexuality is a reality and that these families suffer without the same benefits that heterosexual marriages enjoy. Your issue is with the word marriage because of it's historical definition. I'm not going to debate you on this issue, although I believe differently regardling the historical definition of marriage. I think that many people are closed to the issue because of their own feelings, perhaps church teachings, that gay marriage is wrong because it's immoral. And because it's immoral, it's wrong. There is nothing wrong with healthy, intelletcual dialogue. Again, I appreciate your honesty. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Apr 21, 2009 8:03 AM:

" Yes, jmo, it must be nice not worrying about this law or that law. The thing is, the laws don't single you out for second class citizenship, while there are many laws that discriminate against gay people, and many straight people want to continue to make laws that discriminate against gay people. So while you can go about your life knowing your are treated equally under the law, gay people and those who care about them are still working toward that goal. And while we had achieved marriage equality for a while in California, we have never had the equal status you enjoy. Don't forget, it is not just marriage equality denied to gay people, but military service, job protection, hate crime protections, adoption and foster parenting, health services, and other rights being debated in local, state, and federal governmental bodies, and not just in our country, but throughout the world.

None of the rights we are asking for would take any rights away from you. Your fight is to deny rights to others, while our fight is to obtain the same rights you enjoy. The reason we can't wait for the court is that we need to persuade those who would deny equality, that granting it won't hurt them, and will only make the world a better place for everyone. "

jonb123 wrote on Apr 21, 2009 7:25 PM:

" I say we vote on removing people that aren't born here from here. I was born here, I am a native of this town. Bet none of the council members are or ever will be. If you don't have monwy you can't be part of this rediculous government. So let's write a new law deporting all the illegals and all the people not raised here. I would vote for that. You people come to this town and you have destroyed it. This used to be a good town, but now because of you, it's horrible if you aren't wealthy.
Your greed and selfishness make me sick. "

jonb123 wrote on Apr 21, 2009 7:27 PM:

" equalnotspecial said, "None of the rights we are asking for would take any rights away from you. Your fight is to deny rights to others, while our fight is to obtain the same rights you enjoy. The reason we can't wait for the court is that we need to persuade those who would deny equality, that granting it won't hurt them, and will only make the world a better place for everyone. "

So now my vote means nothing and yours wins because of 3 people???
How is that equality? "

Raven wrote on Apr 22, 2009 6:48 AM:

" and how do you figure your vote doesnt count jon?.....All the council did was say they were opposed to discrimination. About 66 percent of St. Helenans voted against Prop 8, if you voted for it you were in the minority. "

glenroy wrote on Apr 22, 2009 2:02 PM:

" Maybe now we can have our health care 'risk adjusted'.....we do it with existing health issues for straights......equality means we can stop subsidizing gay health care?

Somehow I doubt it......if it gets approved state wide them straights should demand Civil Unions instead of marriage...watch em whine over that. "

reneefannin wrote on Apr 22, 2009 2:49 PM:

" That would be like volunteering for your own lynching... ;-)

One need only reread the blogs written here around last November to know that Prop 8 supporters were frequently called hater, bigots, and homophobes. Who would want to be subjected to that kind of abuse in person? "

Give me a break. I post on here with my own name and everyone in town knows who I am. The last time I checked, no ne was raped, tied to a fencepost and left for dead or bullies as a child because they supported a bigoted proposition. As a gay people we are the vulnerable ones. There are even threats on here that go unedited...and I speak out...we speak out. please do not tell give your :"fear": as an excuse. It is nauseating to someone who must live in fear daily if they live out loud. "

reneefannin wrote on Apr 22, 2009 2:55 PM:

" John Richards wrote on Apr 17, 2009 1:44 PM:
" I wrote "That would only be significant if the issue of gay marriage was similar to the issues of slavery and women's suffrage, which by any stretch of the imagination it isn't. "

To which Renee responded" It is, in fact, exactly like that. "

Hardly. Abolition and women's suffrage and the black civil rights movement were about real, concrete issues. The gay marriage movement is about the right to have a piece of paper called a marriage license. Not exactly the same ballpark, is it. Where is the beef? "

The gay rights movement is about much more than that. It is about our own dream to be accepted, for our children to be seen as no different because they have two same sex parents and not heterosexual parents. It is about young gay people not being harrassed or teased until they commit suicide. It is about stopping the violence against our community. It is about not being afraid to be truthful with yourself and others and being able to live as who you are with the person that you love and not being marginalized. It is about so much more than a marriage certificate. It is about equality on all levels. Marriage is one of those...and it is exactly like that, as I said. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 22, 2009 4:34 PM:

" I didn't ask, what is the gay rights movement all about, so spare the lecture. This blog is about gay marriage, nothing else, so don't try to obscure the issue by going off on a tangent. "

Raven wrote on Apr 22, 2009 6:21 PM:

" I am sorry but it looks like she was answering your post JR...so she is right on point..... "

reneefannin wrote on Apr 23, 2009 8:55 AM:

" Hardly. Abolition and women's suffrage and the black civil rights movement were about real, concrete issues. The gay marriage movement is about the right to have a piece of paper called a marriage license. Not exactly the same ballpark, is it. Where is the beef? "

John Richards wrote on Apr 22, 2009 4:34 PM:
" I didn't ask, what is the gay rights movement all about, so spare the lecture. This blog is about gay marriage, nothing else, so don't try to obscure the issue by going off on a tangent. "

You are right. You did not asked. You mistated what it was about and I corrected you so as not to leave your misperception out there for others to errantly ingest. "

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: