When it comes to the gay marriage ban that is likely to be on state ballot in November, Mayor Chuck Reed is trapped in the closet. And that’s exactly where local gay-rights advocates want him. Chuckles was caught off-guard during a water conference in San Francisco recently, when he was asked whether he plans to break his silence and take a stand on Proposition 8. Reed has made it known that he believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but the fact that both San Francisco and Oakland city mayors have shown their support for gay marriage has put Reed in the spotlight on the issue. “He has said he does not support gay marriage, he supports domestic partnerships, and he has voted that way a number of times,” said Jeff Janssen, spokesman for the mayor. In 2004, while on the council, Reed voted against recognizing and supporting San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s move to marry gay couples. Janssen said that Reed probably won’t take a position on the proposition as long as it’s still being battled in the courts; opponents of the proposition have filed a lawsuit seeking to remove the initiative from the ballot. “Until it’s on the ballot he won’t pay attention to it,” Janssen said. “If it is on the ballot, he will look at it and make a decision, but now it appears there’s a good court fight as to whether it will make it to ballot.” Members of the San Jose gay and lesbian community say it’s better for Reed to remain neutral and not take a position at all rather than support the proposed ban. “He has made it clear to our community where he stands on this issue,” said Aejaie Sellers, executive director of the Billy DeFrank LGBT Community Center. “The fact that he is not coming out is a neutral position; he is not mixing his politics and his personal beliefs, which is a good thing. We hope he remains neutral through this.”
San Jose Inside
San Jose Inside (https://www.sanjoseinside.com)
Well, that’s a first: a bigot that isn’t a loud-mouth. Keep quiet, Chuck.
It is better for all San Joseans that Mayor Reed focuses on balancing the city budget, implementing the Reed Reforms, and facilitating a green vision, than to take a stand on gay marriage. Remember when George Starbird was mayor of San Jose in the 1950’s? Mayor Starbird stuck with the basics, his Santa Clara-San Jose Water Sanitation Project did more for the citizens of San Jose than anything else.
There are moral issues that transcend the city budget—freedom and equality are among them.
As Dante said, “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.”
Chuck should take a stand for freedom and reject the initiative and the narrow minds that are seeking to put it on the ballot.
NOTE: Freedom of religion does not mean you get to impose your personal, moral and religious views on the rest of society, simply that you are free to believe and act as you think fit in your own personal life.
Rich,
So you prefer that our Mayor and Council Members spend their time on issues that are beyond their control?
It cracks me up when a governing body passes non-binding resolutions or proffers opinions on anything other than what is called for in the charter.
I don’t think I’m alone when I say that I expect our elected officials to stick to their knitting, i.e., issues and policies within their control. I really have no interest in paying these folks to do anything beyond that.
I have a great idea, however. How about you paying all expenses associated with a special Council session so that the Mayor and his associates can opine on this and other similar issues, about which they can do absolutely nothing.
I sincerely doubt we are in a ‘moral crisis’.
Moreover, Mayor Reed has essentially run on a platform of managing from a morally neutral platform. We are tired of simple decisions, such as union garbage contracts, turning into ‘moral crises’.
4/5
Oppression and human rights issues are moral questions. When any one group is singled out for discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation it is, by definition, a moral crisis.
It doesn’t take much time to state that discrimination anywhere is unacceptable in the United States of America—much less a special Council meeting.
In fact, it takes less than 15 seconds and then you can let them drone on about budgets and swimming pools.
Not to speak-up when people’s basic rights are at stake is a form of cowardice.
Didn’t we already vote on this, like 8 years ago? Didn’t the people in this state decide by a 60/40 margin that marriage is defined between a man and a woman?
We have a crisis alright. A crisis of rule by judicial fiat, complete disregard for the rule of law and the will of the people.
Gavin Newsom should be in jail for directly violating the laws of this state wrt sanctioning same sex marriages.
As for our mayor, last year Chuck showed much backbone by getting in front of the cameras and declaring that San Jose is not a sanctuary city. Big props go to Chuck for that one – let’s hope he shows the same intestinal fortitude again.
#6- Rich,
Mayor Reed has always made his position on Gay marriage clear from the start. Here is what I’ve heard him say on many occassions, including his debate with Cindy at the Billy De Frank Center:
I support Gay Unions.
I do not support Gay Marriage.
If the law changes and Gay marriage is made legal, then I will support the law.
He has also always maintained that he will NEVER allow Gays to be harmed, or discriminated against in any way shape or form, under his watch because he believes in up holding the law.
Rich said, “Not to speak-up when people’s basic rights are at stake is a form of cowardice.”
So is standing by silent, or making excuses for some racist, bigot when you see them calling members of the human race Anchor Babies, Welfare Bastards, Fags, Bitches…..
#7-Novice,
Yes, we did vote on the issue of Gay marriage, but the Supreme Court found that denying Gay marriage is unconstitutional. They based their decision on the grounds that you cannot discriminate against any one group. (They also mentioned the unconstitutionality of denying interracial marriages in the past.)
Now the so called Christians are requesting that we vote for a Constitutional amendment that would ensure the definition of marriage to be between a man and a women only. The odd thing about this for me at least is this, if you cannot discriminate against a certain group, race, religion, etc. how could a Constitutional amendment aimed at certain group be considered legal?
#10
The odd thing about this for me at least is this, if you cannot discriminate against a certain group, race, religion, etc. how could a Constitutional amendment aimed at certain group be considered legal?
Don’t worry. The current U.S. Supreme Court will have no problem at all forcing their social values onto the population.
We will be spending decades cleaning up the mess created by President Doofus.
#9
So is standing by silent, or making excuses for some racist, bigot when you see them calling members of the human race Anchor Babies, Welfare Bastards,..
The important point to realize in that thread is he is saying these children are GENETICALLY deficient in intelligence as compared to the children “of professionals”.
Post 17
“The odds that a child of laborers here illegally, or that of a poor, unwed teen, will grow-up with the cognitive ability required to master any of the hard sciences is markedly smaller than are the odds for a child of professionals. This does not mean that they are lesser humans, but it does mean that in a high tech world very few of them will be capable of participating at the highest levels. Were the world situation to change radically, say from one ruled by technology to one in which raw manpower became paramount, then the needs of our nation would change, but the realities of genetics would change not one iota.”
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/sji/blog/entries/gfsdepsg_is_not_a_spam_email_title/
How many weeks have you spent in Rwanda this year, Rich? You are pretty cavalier with the word ‘coward’.
#12- Blue Fox,
No, I could not disagree with you more, and I refuse to discuss the stupidity of the previous topic any further. Since I have not participated in the previous discussion any further, since my last post days ago, you can be sure I have moved on from that ignorant, sick thread all together, and will not be pulled back into such a mindless discussion on it again.
Having said that, my recent statement on the THIS post, is about humanity and accountability. The important thing to remember is that this is the human race and name-calling to disparage anyone or to make a point is unacceptable on any level, regardless of what topic you’re discussing. In THIS CASE we are discussing Mayor Reed, and Gay marriage. PERIOD.
I think by discriminating against Gay marriage, or by calling persons who are Gay fags, calling woman Bitches, or illegitimate children Bastards, or people who need a hand up Welfare Bastards, or calling immigrants of ANY color Welfare Bastards, or Anchor Babies is discriminatory and inhumane. As human beings, I believe that we should strive to be compassionate and respectful to one another. If we watch someone abuse another and remain silent, or are making excuses for them because we are too frightened to intervene then I regard this as cowardice.
Kenny,
First, you don’t have to go to Darfur to condemn the genocide. We may not stop horrific acts, but we must never condone those acts with our silence.
Second, Novice, individual rights are guaranteed by the Constitution regardless of what the majority thinks, says or even votes.
Otherwise we would simply be a dictatorship of the majority—as opposed to a dictorship by the minority, which GWB has imposed.
Kathleen #8 – You say that Reed’s position is – “If the law changes and Gay marriage is made legal, then I will support the law.”
Well, the law has changed. The State Supreme Court has ruled that our Constitution requires that it be legal. So shouldn’t Reed be “supporting the law” by standing up against a cynical attempt to write discrimination into the Constitution?
Anyway, it gets more interesting now. Reed’s spokesperson said there is no point on taking a position until the initiative is officially on the ballot. Well, the Supreme Court made it so yesterday. So Reed, which is it – supporting the law (like our Governor does) or bigotry?
#14
#12- Blue Fox,
No, I could not disagree with you more,..
So, you are saying that you agree with finfan that these children are geneticaly inferior to the children “of professionals”.
The rest of his rant simply falls into the “Sticks and stones can hurt my bones….” category.
Personally, this intiative is a waste of taxpayer money; but it’s part of our system in California. However, marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one. Government should get out of the marriage business entirely. All unions, gay or straight, should be civil unions in order to protect the rights and enforce the responsibilities of both parties, and to protect kids that issue from or are adopted into those unions. Everybody, LGBT or straight gets treated equally—a civil union. The state can still collect it’s fee for those civil ceremonies. If poeople want a separate religious ceremony (a marriage), they’re free to have one. Eliminate the word “marriage” from all civil laws, and leave it to religious institutions, where it belongs.
Rich # 6 (they mayor and council) are free to speak up on non-city issues on their own time and their own dime. Stick to public issues on public time. Besides, if this gets on the council agenda it won’t be a 15 second or even a 15 minute discussion. Everyone will turn out for public comment, and we’ll have wasted an entire council session on an issue that does not concern the council as a council. It’ll be more shrill than the Little Saigon fiasco. As Greg #5 stated—they should stick to their knitting.
But you can lead the charge with your heroes Newsom & Dellums to drone on about it ad nauseam in SF & Oakland if you like.
I’m seeing the light here. We should disband all legistlative bodies and suspend the initiative process and trust the making or our laws to our moral and intellectual superiors. After all they are able to see penumbras emanating from the constitution that the rest of us can’t. They must have super powers.
Given the court’s decision and the accelerating rate of decay in this state, we can all look forward to the not too distant day when our ever more activist court gives Gavin Newsom the green light to officiate marriages between
– cousins
– adults and minors
– men and animals
– mix and match
After all, who are we to deny these adults/cousins/children/animals their rights?
This’ll make for a great DeCinzo cartoon.
Wedding ring adorned same-sex couples exiting the First Unitarian church cast derisive comments towards a man and a sheep driving off in a “Just Married” limo.
In the lower right hand corner the pastor says to the newly wedded couple “You may now kiss the bride”. The sheep says “But I am the bride”.
I, too, am beginning to understand the enlightened method of politics.
As long as we begin every council meeting with a rousing and impassioned plea to FREE MUMIA/TIBET/RICHARD SIMMONS, we are doing our humanistic duty and can go on to discuss the city tree-trimming budget with a clear conscience.
Oh God,,,I can feel another Little Saigonesque fiasco brewing,,,,If Mayor Reed was willing to dress in traditional Vietnamese garb to celebrate Vietnamese culture is it that far fetched to expect we will soon see him in Elton John attire at a council meeting as an olive branch? Maybe he could enlist some help from other council members and do a reincarnation of the Village People. Pete Constant sure seemed a natural getting gagged and whipped by a Dominatrix.
#16-David,
Good question! I can’t answer for Mayor Reed. Also, just because the issue makes it to the ballot, doesn’t mean it will pass, nor does it mean if it passes, the Supreme Court will find it Constitutional.
We’ll just have to wait and see what Mayor Reed does. Speaking for myself only, if I were Mayor, I would fight against any form of discrimination.
#17- Blue Fox,
First, you took PART of my original quote on here, and tried to apply it to something on a completely different blog topic. Then after I told you very clearly I did not want to discuss Finfan’s ravings, you came back on and asked me something else, using HALF of my second statement to you. I would like you to stop taking part of what I said in the past or in the future out of context, or using my words to bring up a topic that does not apply to present conversations I’m having.
I find it unbelievable that you are asking me if I agree with Finfan’s stand on this issue, as I think I made it pretty clear what an idiotic concept Finfan has on genetics, intellectual inferiority due to race etc., but I have answered you because you seemed to be trying merely to get clarification on something you only read PART of.
Secondly, by coming back on here today, and trying to draw me into a conversation on a topic I clearly said I do not wish to discuss any more, I find that you are being disrespectful to me.
So please move on, and respect my wishes because I will not answer any more questions by you or anyone else on that ignorant theroy or topic period! Thanks in advance for dropping this and moving on to the topic at hand.
Novice,
First, cousins are allowed to marry in the State of California.
Two, minors do not have the capacity to consent, unless they are emancipated. So they cannot contract to marry.
Three, if you want to fornicate with a goat—it is ok by me—so long as you can prove the goat consented.
Four, I don’t know what mix and match refers, unless your cousin is a goat.
Kenny #21—guess you missed the meeting where the council eliminated tree trimming by city staff. It is now the property owner’s responsibility
#22—Pulp Fiction @ The Taj Gonzal!!!! And they said Chuckie was dull. Harumph!
Isn’t Pete C. collecting a disability pension from SJPD? Maybe a dominatrix can whip him back into shape. If he lost 100 lbs., he could save on gasoline, too. What a bonus.
We’re moving closer to the Ozarks, where a girl asks:” If Daddy divorces Momma, will she steel be mah sista?”.
Novice:
Why are men the only ones allowed to marry animals? Are you suggesting women should not have the right to marry goats as well? That’s discrimination my friend. Stop the hate….
>> First, cousins are allowed to marry in the State of California.
That explains a lot.
>> Two, minors do not have the capacity to consent, unless they are emancipated. So they cannot contract to marry.
Not yet.
>> Three, if you want to fornicate with a goat—it is ok by me—so long as you can prove the goat consented.
You can always count on ACLU types to be down with bestiality. Must be part of the membership initiation or something.
Rich do ACLU’ers have to keep the goat sex on the down low so as to avoid run-ins with PETA?
#29
You can always count on ACLU types to be down with bestiality.
That is because we feel even you deserve a love life.
#30
LOL
It may be at your expense Novice, but you got to admit that was funny.