Mayor Reed Opposes Freedom to Marry

Don’t expect to see San Jose’s Chuck Reed join the growing list of mayors who have pledged their support to the Freedom to Marry campaign.

Announced in January, more than 100 mayors across the country have signed on to the Freedom to Marry campaign, which has a goal “to overturn DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and is working across the country to win marriage in more states and educate the public about why marriage matters to same-sex couples and their families,” according to the organization’s website.

In an interview with San Jose Inside last week, the mayor said he has “always been a supporter of civil unions, domestic partnerships. I’ve voted several times during my career to extend benefits to domestic partners.”

But the mayor draws the line at marriage.

“I was in favor of Prop 8,” Reed said.

Propostion 8 is the state initiative in 2008 that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. California’s ban on same-sex marriage went on trial in 2010 and was overturned but continues to go through a lengthy appeals process.

“In terms of marriage,” Reed said, “it’s really up to the Supreme Court. The voters in California have one view and we’ll have to wait and see if the Supreme Court supports that or not.”

San Jose is the largest city in the country not to have its mayor supporting the Freedom to Marry campaign.

According to the Bay Area Reporter, mayors from California who have given their support include: Ed Lee (San Francisco); Jean Quan (Oakland); Antonio Villaraigosa (Los Angeles); Jerry Sanders (San Diego); Stephen Cassidy (San Leandro); David Glass (Petaluma); Marie Gilmore (Alameda); Don Lane (Santa Cruz); and Christopher Cabaldon (West Sacramento), who is openly gay.

Josh Koehn is a former managing editor for San Jose Inside and Metro Silicon Valley.

67 Comments

  1. Who defines the meaning of the word “marriage”?

    A. Funk and Wagnells
    B. The Governor?
    C. The Legislature?
    D. The courts?
    E. Political activists?
    F. “100 mayors across the country”
    G. Game show hosts?
    H. The People of the State of California?

    > Propostion 8 is the state initiative in 2008 that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

    Defined by a vote of the People.

    Neither Funk and Wagnells, the Governor, the Legislature, the Courts or “100 mayors across the country” have the standing to tell the People of California that their explicitly expressed definition of “marriage” is wrong.

    • If you read the Bible, it states that marriage shall be between man and woman and also that “man shall not come into other man”. I guess they were doing it back then, too.

      • Any and all Bibles are entirely open to an individuals interpretation. We dont all read the same Bible or believe in the same “God” . But Im pretty sure all Bibles preach Love, understanding, acceptance . why cant people just be?

        • He asked the question and I answered it. Marriage is based in religion and that is where it came from. That is where it is defined. I agree. People should just be. Live and let live.

        • “But Im pretty sure all Bibles preach Love, understanding, acceptance . why cant people just be?”

          That would be The New testament.  The Old Testament is deidedly less forgiving…an eye for an eye, and all that stuff…  Most evangelicals seem to be stuck in The Old Testament, which is a decidely un-christian document.

        • “I’m very Old Testament- punish the malefactors.”
            -johnmichael o’connor
              Fri. Oct. 10, 2008 12:48 pm

              San Jose Inside- ‘Numbers Don’t Lie’
              – Jack van Zandt

          Not a criticism, Mr. O’Connor. Just an observation.

        • Marriage has always been an important facet of culture, which is why, like funerals, there has long been association with religion, which has dominated culture for thousands of years. To say that the definition of religion should be defined by the bible would be a mistake, though; in Deuterononmy, the bible says that if a man is caught raping a woman, he must marry her. Do you think we should legally obligate rape victims to marry their rapists?

      • God didn’t write the Bible …… Man did!  And Man, though not perfect,  wrote a book/doctrine to suit itself at that time.  Step up the times.  What do you fear?

    • Spoken like someone who skipped class that day in 8th grade when the topic was checks-and-balances.

      The Federal appeals courts have the penultimate say in whether or not Prop 8 is valid.  Regardless of what SCOTUS rules, the people can try for an amendment to the US Constitution. 

      If, as you seem to think, civil rights are subject to the whim of the public, you’re in great danger.  A bunch of us are trying to get a proposition on the ballot saying that morons such as yourself must be neutered and deprived of voting rights.  Trust me, when you’re on the short end of the stick you’ll appreciate the fact that you can appeal to a higher court.

      (and to the other moron) We don’t care what’s in your bible – the US Constitution is the ultimate law in this land.  Don’t like it?  Move to a theocracy!

      • “(and to the other moron) We don’t care what’s in your bible – the US Constitution is the ultimate law in this land.  Don’t like it?  Move to a theocracy!”

        That is what I would have expected.

      • So in other words it’s okay for you to knock down people who have their beliefs in the Bible but you want people to support your belief that same-sex marriage is okay? Doesn’t that sound a little unbalanced? You put down their beliefs but want them to support yours. I didn’t see that party say anything negative about same-sex marriage or your beliefs, but read what YOU wrote. Sounds like you are the actual moron.

        • I don’t think anyone is telling you who YOU can marry.

          But you, on the other hand, are telling someone else who THEY can marry.

          It is no moron who is pointing out that big difference.

          Nobody is putting down your beliefs or what you want to do with your life. Everybody wants the same freedom with their life that you expect in yours.

        • Why are you saying “YOU”, “you”, “Your”. I was referring to what the other poster wrote. You have no idea what my thoughts and beliefs are, or what freedoms I expect in my life, so stop speculating and stick to the post as it was written, thro.

        • Perhaps you might re-read what they wrote.  They’re using their beliefs to say that God defines marriage.  Who gives a rip what God says about marriage.  The last time I checked we didn’t have to get his/her signature on constitutional amendments. 

          Marriage is a civil contract. period.  As such, it is regulated by civil authorities.  Churches can certainly decide for themselves which ones they wish to solemnize, but they should have absolutely no say in who is allowed to enter into this contract. 

          I had really expected more from this forum.  Too many people trotting out the same idiotic arguments.

        • There are some really classy homosexuals. They are funny and just a joy to be around…and then there are some who really go far to become an embarrassment to the ones with class. Guess where you fit? Take your anger somewhere else and try to “grow” some class.

        • So you think that anyone who believes in separation of church & state is homosexual?  As a married straight person with a brain, I stand by my statement about the poor quality of postings and idiotic statements.  And guess where you fit?

        • Saying that we should not base law on the bible is NOT the same thing as “knocking down people who have their beliefs in the bible”. People who believe in the bible have very little to worry about, because eighty percent of Americans ARE Christians. They’re not a minority who face constant attacks like homosexuals. If you want a government based on the bible, however, you should move to another country, because our founding fathers made it very clear that we will keep church and state separate.

          Your “you’re one of the bad ones” comment reeks of condescension, as well.

        • “As a married straight person….”

          Yeah, right. She just doesn’t know.

          As for brains, the way you rant and rave, sounds like they are made of chitterlings.

          What makes you think I, myself, do not believe in the separation of church and state? In fact, I do. I find it hilarious that you consistently judge, put down those who do not have the same beliefs as you, rant, rave, call people names…. Yes, you have a brain. You sit on it, each and every day. No wonder your head is so big. Like I said…“grow” some class.

        • Your comment that gays are okay as long as they’re funny reminds me of my grandpa who said that ‘darkies were okay as long as they were singing and dancing, but not when they wanted equal rights’

          I didn’t ‘knock’ anyone’s bible.  I just stated that the bible is not the law of this land.  I happen to be a Pastafarian, but we don’t insist that the sacred writings of the holy meatballs be used to justify inequality.

          As for growing some class, implying that someone is gay because they happen to stand up for gays against bullies such as yourself shows that you have none.  My family is full of rednecks and bible-thumpers – and they sound exactly like you.  I watched them torment my gay uncle when he was dying from AIDS and then they denied hospital access to his partner.  They’re the same ones that pumped tens of thousands of dollars into Prop 8 because ‘it was the christian thing to do’ 

          I have a great marriage and think that my gay business partners should be able to have the rights that I enjoy.  Unfortunately, there are still enough dinosaurs of your generation who think that they can ‘vote away’ the rights of others.

      • > We don’t care what’s in your bible – the US Constitution is the ultimate law in this land.  Don’t like it?  Move to a theocracy!

        So tell us, Mr. Smartypants, who does the U.S. Constitution put in charge of specifying the definition of “marriage”?

        A. Funk and Wagnells?
        B. Judge Wapner?
        C. Barney Frank?
        D. You?
        E. Government of the People?

        • You could try to read the Constitution yourself to find out, but it probably doesn’t have enough pictures.
          Or you could ask an 8th grader. 

          Wait!  YouTube has links to the old Schoolhouse Rock videos on basic civics.  They may be a tad bit advanced for feeble minds, but you could ask a 4th grader to help explain the tough parts.



        • Well, I considered all your suggestions, Mr. Smartypants, but everyone seems to be either juvenile, petulant, or irrelevant.

          Was my multiple choice test a bit too hard for you?

          Let me dumb it down for you.  You seem to be more comfortable in an “outcome based education” framework, so let’s see if we can get you to a positive educational outcome.

          Who does the U.S. Constitution put in charge of specifying the definition of “marriage”?

          A. Oprah Winfrey?
          C. Facebook?
          C. Twitter?
          D. Government of the People?

        • Thanks for dumbing it down.  That probably took some effort considering how dumb it was to begin with…

          So I guess you still think that a vote of the people is the ultimate law in this country.  You should have stopped while we only thought that you were a moron instead of continuing with your postings which removed all doubt.

          Maybe you should read the posting from ‘Vote of the People’  S/he has done a very good job of explaining this in terms simple enough that even you might understand.  And if you need help (and it’s painfully obvious that you do) ask a 5th grader to explain it to you.

        • > Thanks for dumbing it down.  That probably took some effort considering how dumb it was to begin with…

          . . . .

          > And if you need help (and it’s painfully obvious that you do) ask a 5th grader to explain it to you.

          Oh.  So I’ve been demoted to a 5th grade mentality, eh, Mr. Smartypants.

          When you can’t think of anything intelligent, just double down on the insults, right?

          So, here’s a question that probably requires more deep thought than you’ve ever risked in your life:

          “So I guess you still think that a vote of the people is the ultimate law in this country.”

          What IS “the ultimate law in this country”.

          A. Saul Alinsky?
          B. Barack Hussein Obama?
          C. Lenin?
          D. Occupy Peoria?
          E. Whatever the voices in your head tell you to believe?

        • Wow!  You still don’t get it.  If you’ll read the original post and then look up the word penultimate, you may actually figure it out (but since you’re afraid of looking stupid in front of a 5th grader, ask a 2nd grader to help you with the big words).

          The passage of Prop 8, or any proposition for that matter, is subject to review by the courts.  However, the courts can also be overruled by passing an amendment to the US Constitution.  Tomorrow the issue will be (temporarily) decided in the Court of Appeals.  However, it will eventually make its way to the US Supreme Court.  But if enough bigots can muster the votes for a federal amendment, even the ruling of the US Supreme Court can be overruled.

          If that’s too complex for you, then just pretend that Homer Simpson is the ultimate law in this country.  He’d certainly do a better job than you.

        • As for doubling down, only a fool would walk away from a guaranteed bet.  I knew as soon as I saw the name of the poster that there would be something dumb.  When (or if) you finally have something intelligent to say, please contribute to the group.  But first,  please, please, please try to learn a few rudimentary facts about the Constitution.

        • > Wow!  You still don’t get it.

          Well, you don’t explain things very well.

          Probably because you don’t understand things very well.

          > But if enough bigots can muster the votes for a federal amendment, even the ruling of the US Supreme Court can be overruled.

          Oh.  So you’re saying [FINALLY] that “the ulimate law in this country” is the rule of the bigots.  It took awhile, but I was finally able to drag it out of you.

          America is NOT “Government of the People, By the People, For the People”;

          America, sayeth Mr. Smartypants, is the rule of “enough bigots” to overrule the Supreme Court.

          Next you’ll have to explain to us how it is that you came to be such a wonderful, tolerant, morally and ethically superior person in a society where the majority are “bigots.”

        • Sorry, I have a quota on the number of idiotic postings I can respond to in a day.  You’ve exceeded your limit.

          Why don’t you look at your original posting, where you wrote that the courts do not have standing to decide the definition of marriage.  When you write moronic statements, you should expect to be treated as such.  And while you’re at it, look up the word ‘bigot’.

          But thanks for the compliments.  It’s really too much, but then compared to you, I must be a rocket scientist.

        • If the emancipation proclamation was put to a “vote of the people,” it never would have passed. The constitution promises certain inalienable rights, and civil rights history has been about the argument of what those rights should be. The recent paradigm shifts in race relationships and gender roles should be enough to show that the majority opinion is not always the best.

        • > If the emancipation proclamation was put to a “vote of the people,” it never would have passed.

          How do you know?  This is just the usual moonbat fantasy that they’re speculations are somehow cosmic fact.

          There WAS no “vote of the people” on the Emancipation Proclamation.

          I realize that you probably can’t help yourself bcause the reigning intellectual paradigm among the Obamatards is to win their arguments by making up facts,  but as more than a few wise people have declared:

          “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.”

        • People vote for senators, congresspeople and the president The president appoints Supreme Court justices who will vote their way and the House and Senate vote for bills that they presume the people want, or which fits their own agenda.  In a democratic republic the voice of the people is heard loud and clear.  The main problem is that those that are voted for don’t always follow the wishes of those they hoodwinked into voting for them. 

          Be that as it may, I still think marriage is a religious institution and should be left up to the churches to figure out.  If one church doesn’t believe in gay marriage, then they can choose not to recognize it.  If another does, let them marry people all they want.  The government should have civil unions for all people that satisfy the private sector’s need for establishing benefits and stay out of the “marriage” business.

        • A. > In a democratic republic the voice of the people is heard loud and clear. 

          B. > The main problem is that those that are voted for don’t always follow the wishes of those they hoodwinked into voting for them.

          So, which is it? A or B?

          I think you’re confused.

        • Dream on. We call it marriage, and anything less is discrimination against a minority and is unconstitutional. Changing the name does not change anything.

          As Bill Mar has said, I don’t get all this anti gay marriage stuff. If the purpose is to stop people from having gay sex, then let them get married!

    • And if a law was passed saying that the religion of this State shall be Catholicism, then the People of California have spoken and it shall be done?

      And if a ballot measure was passed that forbid inter-racial marriage, then the will of the People of California have spoken and it shall be done?

      And if a ballot measure was passed that only allowed Hispanic landowners to vote, then the People of California have spoken and it shall be done?

      Just because a ballot measure it put out to a vote and passes does not mean that it is legal. Any crazy idea can be put out for a vote and passed by a majority to remove the rights of a minority. That is why there is a balance of power in this amazing country – legislative, executive, and judicial.

      Where do you think you and your family would be today if there was no balance of control? Do you really think you would own your own land, be able to choose your own schooling, be able to walk around without carrying ‘papers’, be able to sleep without worrying about the security forces kicking in your front door? Do you think there would be the freedom to have this discussion on the Internet?

      So yes, the Courts that protect all our rights ABSOLUTELY have the standing to tell the majority of the People of California that their explicitly expressed definition of “marriage” is wrong because it restricts the rights of a minority of the People of California.

      If you want absolute control, move to China and join the “People’s Party” so you can tell everyone what their rights are.

      • Thanks for taking the time to comment.  It doesn’t help that the Faux News pundits keep saying that ‘activist judges’ are thwarting the ‘will of the people’.  Unfortunately, idiots such as Kinetic Blogging Action have such poor critical thinking skills that they believe it.

      • Yes, there are judges who will rule against a law passed by majority vote.  But, how do you think those judges came to be in a position to do so?  Judges are either voted for, or most commonly appointed.  The president gets to appoint Supreme Court justices and therefore every time there is a vacancy the media goes nuts trying to predict just how close the next appointee will follow the political and religious leanings, or lack of, by the current president.

        You seem to think that all judges are unbiased arbiters of what is legal and what is not.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Judges are humans drawn from the same pool as all of the rest of us.  Judges are flawed, have biases, make mistakes, are influenced by politics and culture, and are by no means some neutral perfect beings that will be able to sift the legal from the illegal in all cases.

        If the entire nation voted to ban gay marriage by a simple majority vote, and say the last dozen presidents were all Republicans, resulting in right wing appointments to the Supreme Court, do you really think that the Supreme Court would over rule the majority vote?  Would their refusal to overturn a gay marriage ban then support the legality of that ban? 

        Your faith in the courts is admirable, but flawed at its most basic core.  Conduct a straw poll of the people around you.  I am certain you will find your share of those who believe the Supreme Court is too conservative and are giddy with anticipation that Obama can appoint a liberal judge.  Or, you may find grumblings that the Supreme Court is too liberal already and they are praying for the day when Roe vs. Wade will be overturned.  We are a nation that reflects majority opinion.  The only question is how the majority opinion makes its way into our codes and laws.

    • Spoken like someone who skipped class that day in 8th grade when the topic was checks-and-balances.

      The Federal appeals courts have the penultimate say in whether or not Prop 8 is valid.  Regardless of what SCOTUS rules, the people can try for an amendment to the US Constitution. 

      If, as you seem to think, civil rights are subject to the whim of the public, you’re in great danger.  A bunch of us are trying to get a proposition on the ballot saying that cranial rectoids must be neutered and deprived of voting rights.  Trust me, when you’re on the short end of the stick you’ll appreciate the fact that you can appeal to a higher court.

      (and to the bible guy) We don’t care what’s in your bible – the US Constitution is the ultimate law in this land.  Don’t like it?  Move to a theocracy!

      • Jethro,

        Great job!  Calling people cranial rectoids and insulting their religions will foster all kinds of respect and kinship… not! 

        I won’t stoop to the slithering level with a reply in kind, even though you deserve it.  If you can’t be civil, most SJI readers will likely agree that what you have to say is just so much pap.

        • if you read it carefully I didn’t call the moron a cranial rectoid.  I merely stated that cranial rectoids should be neutered.  As for insulting their religion.  I wrote that we don’t care what’s in his/her bible because that is irrelevant to the discussion.  We don’t live in a theocracy (yet) or maybe you haven’t noticed.

          If you’ll take 3 minutes to read the entire thread you’ll note that the moron cannot understand that the Constitution trumps the “will of the people’.  It doesn’t exactly sound like you’re fully aware of the basic principles of our government either, so maybe you’d like to review the Schoolhouse Rock videos too.

        • I’m really surprised with how “We don’t care what’s in your bible – the US Constitution is the ultimate law in this land” has been such a critical statement. It was a reply JethroSaves made to someone who stated that we should base our marriage law on the bible, and as I mentioned in an earlier post, that would be a terrible idea; in Deuterononmy, the bible says that if a man is caught raping a woman, he must marry her.

          Regardless of comments about who is in what grade, JethroSaves is also correct when he speaks about checks and balances. The constitution promises to protect “inalienable rights,” even when that’s not popular. When Linocln issued the emancipation proclamation, abolitionists were the minority.

  2. …..that EVERYTHING Chuck Reed does is republican in nature and philosophy? Gay Marriage? Gifting of public land for a ballpark, which will help his buddies, as well himself. Pension gutting, union busting, etc.  Come on, Chuck. Quit being a closet republican.  You are a true politician, trying to play both sides.  Quit hiding behind that ‘D’you attach your political affiliation to…..

  3. Gee imagine that ?  Mr Greed is narrow minded! its got to be his way or the highway. Thank god your time is up!

  4. Government should stay out of the social convention called marriage. Marriage is more of a religious rite than one needing government sanctions. Instead the marriage or non-marriage status of an individual should not be considered at all by the government. For instance, do away with the marriage tax status. Each income earner should file their own return, no longer combining incomes to file jointly. Estates should be tied to the individual and community property should be nothing more than a legal contract established between individuals, regardless of gender. If government gets out of the business of defining marriage and instead concerns itself with the dealings of individuals, the whole marriage issue become moot.

    • Bill is correct. The Government has no constitutional right to regulate marriage. The same holds true for abortion. The politicians should butt out!

      • This argument always gets raised when the spotlight is on same-sex marriage. It’s like saying, “If we straight people can’t have marriage all to ourselves, then NO ONE should have it!” It’s just a poor excuse for denying equal rights and equal protection to others. The fact is that marriage does exist as a civil contract (and always has, although the bible-thumpers seem to be ignorant of this). Furthermore, the rights and privileges of marriage—which include very tangible economic benefits—are so entrenched in our laws that, even if we wanted to, it wouldn’t be realistic to magically pass some legislation that would erase marriage as a basis for granting benefits. If you did, you’d have, oh, several million pretty upset straight folks wanting to know why they can’t, for example, collect their dead spouses’ SS benefits. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

        The right thing—and it WILL happen in this country—is to extend the benefits of marriage to ALL couples who wish to marry.

  5. If you cannot see it.  He is anti union.  The union and marriage of two people.  Anything with the word UNION will be NO. 
        Stand in line for the law suit.  Only way these people learn.  It’s a shame EVERY CITY of any size is behind support for same sex marriage.

  6. No other way to say it: opposing marriage equality is anti-gay bigotry.  Sad day for San Jose.  Where is the rest of the City Council on this one?  Are they just going to let Chuck tarnish San Jose’s civil rights record.

  7. I opposed Prop 8 and am unequivocally in favor of marriage equality for the LGBT community.  This is a Civil Rights issue and I believe the Mayor is wrong.  I cannot imagine how members of the LGBT community feel living in supposedly progressive San Jose knowing their Mayor’s position.  He does not speak for the City Council.  If the Supreme Court does not permanently reverse the Prop 8 decision, I would support action by our State legislature, similar to Washington State, legalizing same-sex marriage.  Regardless of the Court action, I support another vote of the electorate rejecting Prop 8 and supporting same sex marriage.

    • Ash,
      I agree 100%, it is a Civil Rights issue of equality. Also, I know Mayor Reed is a strong believer in following the law, so I don’t really think he is saying no because he wants inequality for the LGBT community. I think once the law changes to approve Gay marriage in California, he’d support it by following the law. 

      Can the Council vote on whether or not the City should support Gay marriage or is this just up to the Mayor to decide on?

    • Ash,

      If you’re so hot to trot on this issue why don’t you get off your ass and make the Mayor vote on it?

    • And it is for this reason, Ash, and many others, that I fully support you as a San Jose City Councilmember. You are fully on the right side of history, and your constituents can take pride that they are represented by an intelligent, thoughtful leader. Thank you, Ash, for speaking out against that which is wrong!!

  8. Tell me something the mayor doesn’t oppose especially public safety.  Sorry I forgot about the push for a downtown field of dreams.

  9. If they would just call it a “union”, I don’t think there would be so much “anti”. I think people are hung up on the word “marriage’, due to its religious basis. Just change it to “same sex union” and I think people would not have an issue with that. They would probably vote it in.

    • Yeah, except it’s not up to “people” to decide. Everyone is entitled to equal rights under the law. It’s guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Calling it something else means it’s unequal. February is Black History month: take the opportunity to study the history of Jim Crow laws in the United States. It’s the SAME PRINCIPLE.

    • The government should exit the marriage business forthwith.  It should establish civil unions for everyone, straight and LGBT alike.  All laws previously regulating marital rights and responsibilities to each other and children would then regulate civil unions equally.

      If, in addition, couple was to get married, they could do so according to the rites of their particular religion.  Marriage is a religious institution, and the state should butt out of it entirely.

      • While I don’t usually agree with your point of view, on this we are of the same mind.  I view “marriage” as being no different than baptism, or any other religious ritual.  Religious leaders have long held the power to determine when somebody is “worthy” of receiving various religious ceremonies.  Marriage should be no different and the government should stay out of regulating the practice of religion applied to members lifestyles. 

        Remove the term “marriage” from all government documents and replace it with “civil union” or some other secular phrase.  Then allow the private sector to grant equal benefits to anybody who has their “civil union” document.  Let churches marry whomever they wish and people are welcome to use that term all they want within their own circles.

  10. There once was a young couple caught up in pure lust
    Whose desires when made public were met with disgust
    So they brainstormed one night
    And declared a new right
    Now this sister and brotherly love’s been made just

  11. Jamie McLeod was clear in Santa Clara.  An initiative with many Santa Clara signatures such as Proposition 8 would be valid. 

    Reed and McLeod should tie the knot of political imbecility, or at least when they make statements, have a plastic bag from Mt. View over their heads.

  12. Mr. Kalra states I would support action by our State legislature, similar to Washington State, legalizing same-sex marriage. Common! Mr. Kalra! you know better than this! State legislature can not amend state constitution. Marriage between man and woman is in state constitution. where did you study law at?

  13. Dean,

    Considering the meaning of the word “pathological,” your use of it to describe those defending the traditional definition of marriage is nothing if not evidence of your own mental instability, for whom but a mentally unstable person (even if that instability was politically induced) would ever brand a person or people as crazy for holding beliefs endemic to their culture? Contrary to what you might think, to embrace and take comfort in one’s native culture is the very definition of stability.

    Tell me, do you really believe human beings come with delete keys—that their values, beliefs, and customs can be simply cut away and replaced with whatever scheme the latest group of clueless totalitarians have cooked up? That powerful institutions/identities such as marriage, wife, and husband are meaningless and open to political editing? If you do, congratulations, you’ve now joined the ideological ranks of some of history’s biggest—and most destructive—fools.

    Ninety-five years ago Communist totalitarians, under the banner of what was good and right for the people, initiated a war against the religious, cultural, and economic values of its citizens—a war that for three generations kept churches closed, ethnic identities suppressed, and individual spirits subdued. The real power of this oppressive state resided not in its prisons or gulags or firing squads but in zealots like you, political warriors too unstable or ignorant to distinguish human nature from a steaming pile of fresh dogma, and more than eager to point out and condemn those not so easily broken.

    The last twenty years—the post-Soviet years, should have informed the idiots here in America but they haven’t. Out from under the iron thumb of the USSR the newly freed masses have sought comfort in the churches only their ancestors knew, reclaimed their ethnic heritages, and defaulted to values once thought exterminated. In other words, contrary to the crap being taught on campuses, there is something more to a people’s customs and culture than what the state says; something safe, resilient, and necessarily resistant to change. Were it otherwise—were human societies as fickle as you would like them to be, Mankind would never have evolved beyond the chaos and lunacy one can witness in the jungle or a San Francisco Gay Pride Parade.

    The desire of the majority to hold on to what feels right is natural, as is the contrasting desire of the minority to change things. This is a contest that has proven healthy, but one works best when tipped toward the conservative. The majority of the people of this state have done much to accommodate the desires of the minority, and for their efforts in this particular endeavor they’ve been duped by gay activists, disenfranchised by the courts, and slandered by self-righteous, politically correct jerks.

  14. There is now a new petition on moveon [dot] org calling for Reed to step up and sign the Mayors for the Freedom to Marry pledge. You can search for it, or go to the Marriage Equality Silicon Valley page on Facebook and click the link from there.

    • Moveon.org, now there is an organization that just screams respectability.  You just put the nails in the coffin on that one.  Nothing like galvanizing those who support Reed’s point of view by dragging in the lunatic fringe…

  15. Just goes to show you how people take someone’s words and twist the hell out of them to try and make their point. Show me where I made this comment:

    “Your comment that gays are okay as long as they’re funny….”

    —-I never said that. You did. Quote me where I stated that. What I was referring to, as to being “funny” is those gays who have some class are jovial, upbeat, hilarious and just fun to be around…whereas those who lack class are just like you—bitter, chip on the shoulder, ignorant, flippant, on and on.

    “reminds me of my grandpa who said that ‘darkies were okay as long as they were singing and dancing….”

    —-Yeah, you would say something like that.

    “My family is full of rednecks”

    —-As for class…I rest my case. Nuff said. I am done responding to you because you just are not worth the time I need to take to type the words.

  16. Some mayors don’t know of the Mayors for freedom to Marry, but Mr. Reed do. Clearly he chose not to sign for the dignity and the equal treatment of his Gay and Lesbian citizens, and to align the city with the far rightist agenda of discrimination and intolerance.

    Does he really want San Jose to be the last major US city denying what is just decent? All the major companies in Silicon Valley strongly supported marriage equality, explaining how it is important for them to provide all their employees a friendly work environment, willing to attract the best competencies and skills. Discrimination is certainly not that.

    Mr. Reed is damaging the image of San Jose in many ways. Gay and Lesbian people who are numerous in San Jose, all the people who care for them and the ones who understand how much Mr. Reed’s stand is damaging for the city’s image,should dump this Mayor the next time.

    The Mayor of Palo Alto signed the pledge. This, in contrast with San Jose, is very good for the City’s future and image in Silicon valley.

%d bloggers like this: