Mayor’s Gay Marriage Stance Challenged

Three San Jose councilmembers want Mayor Chuck Reed to sign his name on the Mayors for the Freedom to Marry online petition. More than 200 mayors have done so, but Reed, who supports Prop 8, has thus far refused. This prompted councilmembers Ash Kalra, Don Rocha and Kansen Chu to bring the matter before the Rules Committee today with a “you’re not in Kansas anymore” resolution. Oddly, the Midwest-born mayor will now have to vote on whether or not to send a resolution before the council that would possibly force him to pledge his support to something he openly opposes. Vice Mayor Madison Nguyen, a gay marriage supporter, originally signed on to the memo but changed her mind after reading it—something she probably should have done beforehand. Also on the four-person Rules Committee are gay marriage supporter Pierluigi Oliverio and Republican Pete Constant—one of two councilfolk a few years ago to vote in closed session against an amicus curiae brief opposing Prop 8; you can probably guess who the other vote was. What makes all of this fantastic is that Constant won’t be attending the meeting, and his alternate, Councilmember Rose Herrera, rarely shows up in his place. That likely leaves Nguyen and Oliverio with the task of putting the mayor’s feet to the fire. Reed’s vote is all but guaranteed, while Nguyen has already shown she doesn’t want to step out of the company line. Meanwhile, Oliverio, who is currently running for re-election against openly gay attorney Steve Kline, could cast a politically valuable vote in favor of the resolution without any threat it will pass. If the resolution were to pass, though, it would most likely come to the council on the same day Oliverio raises the rainbow flag in honor of LGBT contributions to the city.

The Fly is the valley’s longest running political column, written by Metro Silicon Valley staff, to provide a behind-the-scenes look at local politics. Fly accepts anonymous tips.


  1. There is no real philosophical, societal, biological, constitutional, or political rationale for “gay marriage”.

    As far as anyone knows, most gays don’t even want “gay marriage”.  It is just a pure brute force “cram down” engineered by the Democrat warlords to prove that the ignorant masses are ignorant and can be made to accept anything the warlords choose to impose. It’s just the warlords’ way of showing off how relentless and unstoppable they can be in their use of “cunning, skilled, artful, sleazy, bullying rhetoric”.

    In California, the “gay marriage” issue has been reduced to “what is the definition of the word marriage?” 

    The voters have settled that issue: “marriage is the union of one man and one woman”. Case closed. Argument over.  If a gay man wants a union with a gay woman, that’s a marriage.  If two gay men want to form a union, that’s not a marriage.  Clear?

    No judge and no court can legitimately make up a different definition.  When courts start making up definitions, the rule of law is over.

    The agitation of craven politicians for “gay marriage” is typical “feel good” sentimentality by shallow, dim-witted Type II Democrats (and “Democrat Lite” RINO Republicans) who want to be loved by the special interest groups and recognized as reliable Sergeant Schultzes by the Democrat warlords.

  2. Maybe the mayor thinks there’s more important things to worry about than gay marriage at the moment. Unless we’re going to legalize gay marriage in San Jose and make it a mecca for gay marriage, there’s really no need for this sort of posturing during a financial crisis.

  3. > Except for the philosophical concepts of liberty, equal justice under law and equal opportunity, the constituional idea of a fundamental right to marriage under Loving v. Virginia, a clear argument that biological status is not a requisite for legal marriage, and the fact, that gay people vote—-your comment my be relevant.

    And what is the definition of the term “marriage” as used in this contentious and sophistic assertion?

    Who made up the definition? Funk and Wagnells? The ACLU? Barney Frank?

    Is it the definition for “marriage” stipulated by the voters of California, voters of 31 other states, and the U.S. Congress?

    > Your right to speak is a fundamental right—just like a gay person’s right to marriage.

    Marriage: in the state of California, it is a union between one man and one women.

    A gay person has a fundamental right to marry one person of the opposite sex.

    If you want to assign the job of making up definitions of things to judges and lawyers, why don’t you suggest to them that they invent a term that means “a union between two gays”.

    Maybe they could call it: “garriage”, or “whoop-dee-doo”, or “Rich Robinsons solopsistic social conceit”.

    • LOL—does your sophistry know no bounds?

      To limit language definition to majority rule or a dictionary entry is truly absurd.  Legal terms have different meanings for lawyers and the general public.  For instance, the dictionary definition of malice has no relevance in a court of law, neither would a definition of negligence.  The law provides definitive elements for each.

      Each as their own legal meaning.  Fundamental Right also has a legal meaning, as does marriage.  The legal definition of marriage changes depending upon the state,nation, culture where it is practiced.  There are those, such as yourself, who would impose the definition according to their own limited view of human relations.  I see no problem with that, but your view or even the majorities view of that word is not despositve as a legal concept.

      Moreover, the dictionary definition has changed over time.  See Websters and/or any other dictionaries.  All have incorporated the concept that marriage is a contract between two individuals—not limited to different genders.  Look it up!

      Just as you may pronounce tomato “toe mae toe” or “toe ma toe” doesn’t make the salad any different for eating or legal purposes.

      • Amazing Rich, you actually wrote something I agree with for once.

        Someone wrote to me on facebook about my comment here on SJI.  I responded with the following.

        It’s just hypothesizing Reed’s status, and not reflective of my own opinion. Being a catholic, gay marriage is a sin, but as someone who wants to evolve past my childhood teachings, I understand that I must be accepting of any/all cultures. LGBT is a large part of most world cultures, so to evolve myself, I must accept it no matter what I was taught growing up.

        Had I been in Reeds shoes, it would have been signed. A pen stroke is but a minute of my time.

        My stance on this goes a bit further though..

        There is irrefutable proof that life exists on other planets.  Minerals found on Mars could only have been created in the presence of micro organisms dying in water, then fossilizing on the ancient Mars ocean bed.

        The question is, does intelligent life exist out there?

        I’d like to think it does.  While the Fly/Metro made parody of my George Takei reference,  there is a ton of lessons to be learned from the “Trek” series on this subject of tolerance, perhaps one of the most mind bending episodes I ever watched was from “Enterprise”

        Here’s a link if you want to read the entire episode synopsis, but I’ll give you the short of it following the link..

        A male crewmember of the enterprise dips his hand in a box of marbles with an alien woman, and winds up pregnant.  A man, got pregnant.

        Basing relationships on *just* our own reproductive functions will not work towards diplomacy in the greater universe.  Just because we reproduce in one manner, doesn’t mean intelligent life will use the same reproductive methods.  Some might have advanced past sexuality altogether, and rely purely on gestating new citizens via in-vitro fertilization and artificial wombs.

        Humanity has come a long way in just 200 years.  We’re now understanding the basics of what matter is, thanks to the work being done at the CERN-LHC.  At one point, we will go beyond understanding, and actually learn how to manipulate time/space/matter for travel.  Maybe not in my lifetime.. Maybe by the time we get the city debt payed off (400 years?)

        Thing is though, will we as a species be ready?  Will we as a species have put aside our petty differences between each other, and as Carl Sagan said, be ready to take our first dip in the galactic ocean?  Will we be ready to accept what’s out there?

        The fact that we’re still, for the most part, thinking earthbound, that this issue still exists today points to “no, we’re not ready.”  If there is still a good portion of the population that feels this way, it’s like having that embarrassing cousin that snorts coke.  You can’t just pretend they don’t exist.

        You can’t really talk bad about them either…  So what’s left?  Pity is not a good thing either.  Pointing out why they’re shameful isn’t quite the kick in the head it should be.  Kicking them in the head isn’t really the lesson to be learned either.

        Teaching them how to think beyond one dimensional thought is a start.  That beyond their own personal opinion that they clutch to, there is an entire WORLD out there that thinks otherwise.

        Part of the Cortese family is now Thai.  In Thailand they have 5 distinct “genders.”  They don’t even consider it sexuality.  Despite the many bad things that go on in Thailand, respecting a persons right to choose who they are is fundamental there. If one of my children/neices/nephews comes to me when they’re older and tells me, “I’m gay” am I supposed to turn off my love like a switch?

        No, only a sociopath can do that.  I don’t fancy myself becoming one. 

        I’ve put a lot of thought into this subject over the years.  Like I said above, despite my teachings I am of the opinion that if I, or the human race is to evolve it’s acceptance, we have to evolve past this issue.

        Maybe we should just call it “Takei Marriage” so people can stop whining about “Gay Marriage.”  George did offer to lend his name to the cause.

      • Oh, right!

        Sounds like Humpty Dumpty’s grasp of reality in ‘Through the Looking Glass’:

        “A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less.”

        So, the rule of law in Obama’s America has degenerated into Judge Humpty Dumpty making making law from the bench based on nothing more than feel good whimsy:

        > The legal definition of marriage changes depending upon the state,nation, culture where it is practiced.

        “Today, I think marriage means a union between two gay guys.  It’s not what the people want.  There is no precedent for it.  But I feel it’s what the culture needs.  Have you seen ‘Family Guy’ or ‘The Simpsons’ lately?”

        Rich, you are NOT serious.

        • > But me thinks the man doth protest too much.  It is not Obama seeks to define or redefine words, it is yourself.

          Oh, really?

          Can you provide an example of a word used by Obama that Lou Scannon, Troglodyte and Flat Earther, seeks to “redefine”?

          It would be especially helpful to the troglodyte community if you would provide the actual correct definition of the word as used by Obama, and contrast it with the ignorant, incorrect misdefinition used by lesser people.

        • It’s great how making “law” from the bench is an anethma, except—of course—when the bench agrees with you.  These same neophytes who claim to be against making law from the bench—can’t wait for the court to invalidate Obamacare.

          With the exception of this Supreme Court, law is supposed to evolve through precedent, reasoned argument and the application of principle.  It is not a whimsical exercise.

          But me thinks the man doth protest too much.  It is not Obama seeks to define or redefine words, it is yourself.

          if it is not, luckily,  your way or the highway.  But as metaphors go, I do like my way—which is also the freeway.


    • Lou Scannon, a slight majority of Californians may have voted for Prop 8, but issues of civil rights should not be discussed in terms of the majority opinion. If Americans had voted on whether or not to legalize slavery when Lincoln decided to change the definition of the word “person” to include African Americans, then the emancipation proclamation would not have been issued at the time it was.

      Your worldview has always appeared very alien to mine, but I must admit, I’m starting to become frightened by language of yours that hints at an extremism that should be taken very seriously. Your accusation that gay marriage is undesired by gays and driven only by “Democratic warlords” reminds me of Jared Loughner in a really scary kind of way.

  4. If LGBT Groups donate to measure B campaign, Chuck Reed would endorse any proposal they offered. In fact he’s even likely to allow Liccardo to publicly display his affection for the mayor rather than keeping it in the closet like they do now.

  5. Except for the philosophical concepts of liberty, equal justice under law and equal opportunity, the constituional idea of a fundamental right to marriage under Loving v. Virginia, a clear argument that biological status is not a requisite for legal marriage, and the fact, that gay people vote—-your comment my be relevant.

    We can redefine language anytime we want—Republicans do it all the time.  Remember, Job Creator for the class of people who are sucking the life out of our economy?

    Finally, no majority is allowed to over-ride a fundamental right.  If they could, flat earthers would be barred from voting or participating in blogs.  It would be an easy election.

    Your right to speak is a fundamental right—just like a gay person’s right to marriage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *