Porterville LGBTQJamie Garza PortervilleLgbtqmeusa

Date: Aug 1, 2009 10:52 AM
Subject: PortervilleCity Council to Vote on Resolution Opposing SB 54

"Body: This is a link to Cam Hamilton's resolution opposing Senate Bill 54. This resolution is filled with biased and dangerous assumptions that go far beyond those made by Prop. 8. Calling marriage between a man and a woman a "natural institution" and suggesting that accepting same sex marriage somehow tarnishes the institution and makes it dangerous to children--these are assumptions not found in Prop. 8. In the last paragraph, one reason for opposing SB 54 says "for the sake of the best interest of children" What about our children!!! SO damn mad!!! It will be voted on at the next City Council Meeting, Tues. Aug. 4th @ 7pm. I encourage you to come witness this. 291 Main St. Porterville,CA 93257. Unfortunately, I will be out of town getting some much needed R&R with my family. If you need more info., contact Brock Neeley at brock93274@yahoo.com .

http://docs.google.com/a/clearwire.net/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=122d34da8cc500f6&mt=application%2Fpdf&AuthEventSource=SSO

Jamie "
________________________________________________________
*this is the text of senate bill 54
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 308 of the Family Code is amended to
read:

308. (a) A marriage contracted outside this state that would
be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was
contracted is valid in this state.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a marriage
between two persons of the same sex contracted outside this state
that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the
marriage was contracted is valid in this state if the marriage was
contracted* prior to November 5, 2008.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, two persons of
the same sex who contracted a marriage on or after November 5,
2008, that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which
the marriage was contracted shall have the same rights, protections,
and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities,
obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from the
California Constitution, the United States Constitution, statutes,
administrative regulations, court rules, government policies,
common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are
96
SB 54 — 2 —
12
*granted to and imposed upon spouses, with the sole exception of
the designation of “marriage.”
O
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_54_bill_20090715_amended_asm_v96.pdf

* this is council member hamilton's resloution opposing this bill (i guess he can't read)

"


RESOLUTION NO. _______-2009

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE OPPOSING
STATE SENATE BILL 54 (LENO)

WHEREAS, Article 1, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution reads “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”.

WHEREAS, these words reserving marriage for a man arid a woman were placed into the Constitution by the people’s affirmative vote on Proposition 8 on November 5 last year.

WHEREAS, 78,578 voters in Tulare County or 75.1% of the electorate voted in favor of Proposition 8.

WHEREAS, the California Constitution, Article II, Section 1 states that “all political power is inherent in the people” and that “they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require”.

WHEREAS, the natural institution of marriage is, was, and should always remain a beautiful, special relationship between a husband and a wife.

WHEREAS, marriage between a man and a woman is an important and beneficial role model for children to emulate.

WHEREAS, Proposition 8 reserved marriage licenses to a man and a woman by stating that the only “valid” marriage is “marriage between a man and a woman”.

WHEREAS, Proposition 8 additionally prohibited recognition of out-of-state marriages by stating that man-woman marriages are the only marriages “recognized” by the State of California.

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 54, authored and coauthored by eight Democrats in the California Senate and Assembly, would undermine Proposition 8, the people’s vote, and the marriage institution itself by awarding marriage licenses and marriage rights to out-of-state relationships that are not “a man and a woman”.

WHEREAS, SB 54 stipulates that a “marriage” between two persons of the same sex contracted outside this state is valid in California if the marriage was contracted prior to the passage of Proposition 8.

WHEREAS, SB 54 blatantly violates Article 1, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution, which states that the “only” type of marriage “recognized” from outside California is “marriage” bctwccn a man and a woman”.

Page 1 of 2

WHEREAS, the Constitution refers to marriages past, present, and future when it absolutely and unequivocally states that, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”.

WHEREAS. the Proposition 8 proponents further stated in their ballot arguments that “Your YES vote on Proposition 8 means that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed”.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE if RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Porterville, in respect of the voters, the California Constitution, and for the sake of the best interests of children, the City of Porterville opposes SB 54 as a blatant violation of our state constitution and the people’s vote to reserve marriage licenses for a man and a woman in the State of California.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of August, 2009. "



*just for fun is is the text of prop 8 this is all folks!
"PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California."
http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm

thanks, jessica tulare co equality team- team porterville, see you at 7pm on tuesday aug 4th at porterville city hall on main st!
http://www.portervi llenerd.com/ porterville- california- city-council- to-vote-on- controversial- same-sex- marriage- topic-yet- again/

Porterville California City Council to Vote on Controversial Same-Sex Marriage Topic Yet Again


PRESS RELEASE
July 29, 2009
Porterville, CA

Continues to drain city resources and reputation

Former Mayor and current Councilmember Cameron Hamilton is scheduled to introduce a resolution asking the Council to condemn same sex marriage, this time using Mark Leno’s Senate Bill 54 as a hook, at the next Porterville City Council Meeting on August 4, 2009. The meeting will take place at 7PM at City Hall on Main Street in Porterville, deep in California’s Central Valley. Local Civil Rights advocates and leaders will be available for press comments both before and after the meeting.

Unlike last September’s resolution in support of Prop 8 introduced by Councilmember Brian Ward which passed unanimously with minimal public notice, Hamilton’s new attempt is happening in full view of Civil Rights advocates from Porterville and across the state. The local advocates have been present at every public meeting for months educating City Council and Portervillians on how Council’s September Resolution hurts individuals and places the ability of the City to do its ordinary business at risk.

At the July 21, 2009 City Council meeting Hamilton asked for permission to introduce a resolution regarding Senate Bill 54. SB 54, introduced by Mark Leno (D-SF) would allow same-sex couples who were married legally in another state but who are now in California all the rights rights that California grants married couples except the right to call themselves married. This is squarely in line with Prop 8 supporting campaign materials and rank and file comments that the issue is not the rights granted to the couples but rather the name “marriage”.

During the very heated discussion at the most recent Council meeting on July 21, new Mayor Pete McCracken, and Councilmen Pedro Martinez and Felipe Martinez echoed the advocate’s arguments that they have heard many times: that Council is not the place to discuss State and Federal level matters and that damages the City’s economic development efforts. Hamilton persisted, McCracken demanded a call to order to avoid what multiple accounts have described as Councilmen nearly coming to blows.

A vote on whether Hamilton would be allowed to introduce a resolution was evenly split, with McCracken and Felipe Martinez opposed, Hamilton and Ward in favor, and Pedro Martinez abstaining. This change from September’s previous unanimous vote sets the stage for a dramatic discussion and vote at the next meeting on August 4th.

“Councilmember Hamilton and Vice Mayor Ward continue to damage the ability of Porterville’s City Government to do its job in these difficult times by bringing personal and religious concerns before Council,” said Barry Caplan, Porterville Civil Rights advocate.

“Council’s prior actions and resolutions have led to the split of Californians into 3 arbitrary classes where there should only be one:
1 – People who are free to marry those who they love
2 – People who are not free to marry those who they love
3 – People who are currently married but should they become single again through death and divorce will not be allowed to marry the person they love again

“It is well past time for Cameron Hamilton to stop wasting Porterville City time, resources, and its valuable reputation for his own and Ward’s personal crusade.”

“SB 54 does not create any new law or change the law,” said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who helped draft the legislation. “It simply clarifies the rights of married same-sex couples in the aftermath of Prop 8, which is essential to prevent needless cost, confusion and anxiety on the part of same-sex couples and third parties dealing with those couples.”

“Because Prop. 8 created such a confusing, unequal situation for legally married same-sex couples, it is critical that California enact this legislation so that these couples are treated fairly and businesses and others have guidance as to what the law requires,” said Equality California (EQCA) Executive Director Geoff Kors. “All legally married couples deserve to be treated respectfully. Therefore, we urge the Porterville City Council to oppose this counter-productive resolution.”

ABOUT PORTERVILLE, CA: Porterville is a town of approximately 50,000 deep in the heart of the Central Valley of California, located midway between Fresno and Bakersfield in rural Tulare County. The primary industries are citrus growing and providing mental health services for developmentally delayed individuals on behalf of the State of California.

During the 2008 campaign for Prop 8, Porterville’s City Council voted unanimously in a Resolution to urge its citizens to vote to remove existing Civil Rights from some Californians. It was the only Council in California to vote in favor of supporting Prop 8. Porterville citizens responded to the Council’s call, voting over 75% in favor of the measure. Advocates for Civil Rights have been active and present at every public meeting since the California Supreme Court ruled Prop 8 as a valid Amendment, and at most meetings prior to that dating back to September 2008. The advocates work to shine a light on the actions and effects of the Resolution on Porterville’s entire population.

Porterville’s next City Council meeting takes place Tuesday August 4th, 7PM at City Hall, 291 North Main Street in Porterville. Final Agendas are generally available the Friday afternoon before the meeting, and are available from Luisa Herrera, Deputy City Clerk. Ms.Herrera is available at Tel: (559) 782-7464, Fax: (559) 715-4010, and
email: lherrera@ci. porterville. ca.us



"URGENT ACTION ALERT:

Porterville City Council needs to hear from you, in your own words ASAP regarding this Tuesday's Resolution written by Cameron Hamilton in which he would have Porterville officially condemn Mark Leno's SB54 bill which clarifies the State's position for same sex couples that are legally married in other states.

And we need you to write and to attend Tuesday's meeting which is sure to be dramatic. We need you if you care about SSM and even if you do not live in Porterville.

Here is an opinion piece from Hamilton in today's Recorder: http://www.recorder online.com/ opinion/matter- 42473-scheduled- council.html

Note how former-Mayor Hamilton admits Prop 8 is discriminatory, but that it is fine for "the People" to enshrine discrimination in the law by majority vote.


We have worked for 11 months to educate Council regarding their errors in last September's Resolution urging local citizens to vote for Prop 8.

Now is the time for a great push to get the vote we need.

We have pointed out repeatedly at every public meeting how voting in favor of anti-SSM Resolutions is:

- bad governance,
- destructive to Porterville's reputation in the economic development industry,
- divisive where we need to be inclusive for the City to be the best it can be,
- not proper for a City Council to consider at all as SSM is a State and Federal matter


We have indications that the vote will go our way -

that means that Hamilton's Resolution will be voted down. That would be a remarkable reversal of last year's unanimous votes.

But we can not count our chickens before they hatch!

Our opposition has been quiet for a while, and I have heard they expect to turn busloads of church goers out to Tuesday's meeting. They were shocked and outraged at the reversal Councilmen Pedro Martinez, Felipe Martinez and Mayor Pete McCracken when they didn't simply rubber-stamp Hamilton's hateful proposal this time.

WE NEED YOUR IMMEDIATE HELP!

The opposition has been flooding all Councilmembers with cut and paste letters. Yes, they can't come to the meetings and they can't write their own damn letters.

But you can!

And you will! :)

The meeting is at 7PM on Tuesday August 4 at City Hall on Main Street in Porterville.

Here are the Council email addresses:

Mayor Pete McCracken
petemccracken@ portervilleca. gov

Cameron Hamilton (is writing the resolution)
cameronhamilton@ portervilleca. gov

Felipe Martinez
felipemartinez@ portervilleca. gov

Pedro Martinez
pedropetemartinez@ portervilleca. gov

Brian Ward (wrote last year's resolution)
brianward@portervil leca.gov


Please write each member, and copy me on the mail so I can keep track of how much mail each is getting. And let me know by email (bcaplan@gmail. com) if you will be attending the meeting.

Please forward to all relevant email lists ASAP.


From our press release http://www.facebook .com/note. php?note_ id=229799210290:

“SB 54 does not create any new law or change the law,” said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who helped draft the legislation. “It simply clarifies the rights of married same-sex couples in the aftermath of Prop 8, which is essential to prevent needless cost, confusion and anxiety on the part of same-sex couples and third parties dealing with those couples.”

“Because Prop. 8 created such a confusing, unequal situation for legally married same-sex couples, it is critical that California enact this legislation so that these couples are treated fairly and businesses and others have guidance as to what the law requires,” said Equality California (EQCA) Executive Director Geoff Kors. “All legally married couples deserve to be treated respectfully. Therefore, we urge the Porterville City Council to oppose this counter-productive resolution.”

Wednesday, July 22, 2009
EXCLUSIVE AUDIO: Ron Prentice of Yes on 8 Holds Secret Meeting on Future Plans, Instructs Prayer for LGBT Divisiveness on 2010

In a secret meeting two weeks after Meet in the Middle, Ron Prentice, Chairman of Protect Marriage, the group responsible for the Yes on 8 campaign, spreads misinformation about the efforts of the LGBT population to gain their rights.

Introduced by Pastor Jim Franklin of Cornerstone Church of Fresno, who says that Meet in the Middle was a failure, Ron praises the LDS church's work, talks about the Prop 8 challenge, gleefully reports that the LGBT community is facing a divisive debate on when to return to the ballot, tells everyone to pray that the divisiveness continues, dismisses Harvey Milk and says the Matthew Shephard Act will protect pedophiles.

From someone who publicly confesses not to hate the LGBT population despite his efforts to strip us of our rights, he sounds pretty harsh in private. And for those who have been saying that our internal debates on 2010 vs. 2012 and beyond is giving ammunition to the opposition - well, here's your proof.

Here is an audio recording of the secret meeting in which many were turned away from attending. A source of Unite the Fight was able to attend clandestine and record.

Below is a breakdown with quotes. (Emphasis is my own.)



0:00 Pastor Jim of Cornerstone Church in Fresno, CA, talks about how Meet in the Middle wasn't a success but how his counter protest the next day was. (Remember, we're the "opposition in these recordings.) He then introduces Ron.

5:00 Ron Prentice, California Family Council and Protect Marriage
Ron starts off by saying that the main point that Protect Marriage wants to make in the meeting, it's “The battle has just begun.” He goes on to states, "As Christians, we have lots of things that take up our time. We raise families, some of us are grandparents. . ." The implication made here is that the LGBT population don't have these concerns.

“We can’t go into hiding when it comes to marriage.”

Prentice refers to a Time magazine article that gives the LDS church the credit for the passage of Prop 8, but no real credit to Roman Catholics and evangelicals.

7:00 He received a call from a Mormon board member of Protect Marriage who said he had no influence over that article and didn’t want Ron to think he was trying to hog all the credit.

“It was wonderful” that the LDS church went door-to-door with their own information about marriage during Prop 8 campaign, he says. “The Roman Catholics and evangelicals had to catch up.”

7:18 “I do believe that evangelicals have learned how to step up to the plate a little better. And we are a working coalition now. Interfaith so to speak. On this issue in particular and we will continue to do so. And there has been great cooperation and great communication between different entities.”

7:53 In regards to 2010, the “threatened date when the opposition may come back and to try to actually negate what Prop 8 just put into the constitution.”

8:09 “The other side is splintered. There is a group called the Courage Campaign which is more activist oriented. They polled their membership, their constituency and found out that 85% of their constituency thinks they should move forward in 2010 with an amendment. Equality California polled their constituency and that group said 69% of them said, 'yes, we should move forward in 2010'".

“Well regardless of the poll, the research suggests that wouldn’t be wise on their part. So as you pray, continue to pray for divisiveness on the other side. [laughter] Continue to pray that there will be splintered relationships on the other side because that precisely what’s going to keep them in a confused state. Which sounds typical, doesn’t it?"

9:25 Ron gets to the “subject at hand”: Proposition 8. “We want to try to prepare you as best we can.” He refers to Jennifer of Advocate for Faith and Freedom, a religious liberty organization, who will speak after who will give the attendees more details, “…Ways in which you might be better able protect your churches from what might be forthcoming now that there are same-sex couples in this state who may want to show up at your next marriage ritual, for example.”

9:50 Ron says they’ll talk about Protect Marriage’s game plan and strategic plan, but “we obviously can’t get into that in-depth."

“There will be an ongoing broad educational effort from the Protect Marriage group.”

10:14 Ron brings up the subject of the 2004 penal code change “which defined gender not as biological but as either real or perceived.” He goes on to say it’s a criminal code and that it “Opened the door to a lot of sexual confusion in employment discrimination and a lot of sexual confusion on public school campuses.”

Because of this, he says, the LGBT population has incrementally, through legislation, has tried to redefine sexual orientation or gender and marriage.

11:33 Refers to Alameda city school district stand off between school board and 500 Christian about “homosexual curriculum being placed into the public school system in Alameda.” It was implemented. “School boards, city government and obviously state government choose to disregard the will of the people. And that was, unfortunately, the reason why Proposition 8 was necessary.”

12:34 He turns to the efforts to create Harvey Milk Day and informs the attendees who he was and that he has become an “icon for homosexual leadership, and they are trying to make Harvey Milk, who was the first ‘outed’ gay city council member” . . . “an icon in the public schools. So Harvey Milk Day would memorialize Harvey Milk as the first gay leader in government. It has nothing to do with his leadership abilities. It has everything to do with his sexual orientation.” Naturally, they hope the governor will veto this.

Hide


13:40 Refers to lawsuit in New Jersey about the Methodist church that had public facility for 100 years that has been rented used for marriages from all sorts of people, but denied a lesbian couple to have a civil union service. They filed suit. Church lost and lost its tax exempted status for that piece of property. “Those are the kinds of things that are forthcoming.”

14:39 Refers to southern pastor Jack Gibbs who was to speak in Canada to Christian pastors and had to sign a disclaimer according to Canadian law that he would not say “anything negative about homosexuality regardless of whether it were biblical or not or in addition, anything negative about Islam.”

15:03 “Those are the issues of the day and in our churches and what is forthcoming and that’s why it’s very beneficial for you to have some legal assistance here today." He refers to European countries, saying that “several of those have same-sex marriages and the rest have same-sex civil unions, and the church is being forced into silence in those countries.”

15:31 “…same-sex marriage is now legal in six other states, never by the will of the people, always either by the legislature or the courts. And those are the kind of things that will be pressuring us as pastors.” Ron refers to their efforts to counter federal case against Prop 8. They did in fact get the motion to intervene since state government of California is against Prop 8.

16:27 “Even the opposition didn’t want to see the issue of marriage go to the federal courts now,” he says. “They think it’s too soon.” He goes on to discuss the opposition within LGBT organizations to federal case. Since this is old information, it’s now not relevant in that these legal, LGBT organizations plus the ACLU have now voiced support.

“If you would continue to pray for divisiveness among our opposition, but also for different constituencies of promoting gay marriage would continue to fight about whether or not to move this forward and that they would use their money against each other instead of (garbled) across the nation.”

17:26 Ron speaks about ENDA and the fear of employers, churches pastors having to hiring LGBT, especially transgender people. “There are now sets of protections, laws for the transgendered, which is a generic term, means if they’re crossdressers, if they are in the process of changing their gender . . .”

“Churches who employ, will need to identify bylaws and alter them perhaps to make sure that you don’t have transgendered people using the opposite restroom of their biological sex.

“There are those conditions taking place in public schools now where if a child comes to school one day biologically male for example and says, “I’m a female,” according to the CA penal code, the law says that the school will have to honor and provide alternative restrooms and locker rooms facilities.”

Refers to case in LA where a “crossdresser” who is biologically male uses the same locker as girls at the same time as they’re using them. “Those are the things that can even take place on your church campus.”

“I’m the big wake up call. I’m here to say, ‘Hey eyes wide open folks. Because it’s really is time we cannot say that it’ll never happen to the church, because it’s happened. And the California employment law is actually against us unless we protect ourselves.”

19:14 Ron goes on to say the most ignorant things about the Matthew Shephard Act. “And any time that we, even verbally, say things negatively about homosexuality, those kinds of laws are expanding and they will come after you as pastors, and those bills in particular protect pedophiles. So, for example, if a pedophile were to attack, I say attack, approach, a child in a church or an employment situation or a public school situation, and you or I were to pull that pedophile off the child and say something to that pedophile about his poor behavior, that pedophile could actually file a suite against you for having committed a hate crime against them . . . (indistinct.) So those are the kinds of protections that are now in place, and we have to fight against them…Are you scared? Actually we don’t operate out of fear, we operate out of being prepared and being educated.”

20:25 Ron says that helping the attendees, the pastors, those who oppose LGBT rights, to be prepared and educated is why they are having the meeting. He says that Protect Marriage has “an opportunity now to educate the masses through you all. Through pastors who will continue to grow the pastor coalition and the pastor network will provide curriculum for you for your churches. And we are beginning to ask at the grassroots level that you create councils will regionally, as well as grassroots networks of activists regionally, to begin thinking of message of marriage’s ultimate meaning and purpose, door-to-door.”

21:17 Ron goes on to state they have a year to three years before we, their opposition, “tries to get Prop 8 out of the constitution. It going to be a very, very difficult task on their part and very expensive. But we’re ready and we have a game plan, and we thank you for your participation.”

I will continue to work on transcribing the rest of the meeting in which Jennifer M. of Advocate for Faith and Freedom gives advice to the pastors and attendees on how to avoid discrimination lawsuits.

Posted by Unite the Fight! at 10:45 A

http://unitethefight.blogspot.com/2009/07/exclusive-audio-ron-prentice-of-yes-on.html#0

TAKE A STAND TOMORROW, July 21st

Where: Porterville City Hall 291 North Main Street, Porterville CA 93257
When: Oral Communications start at 7 pm sharp
We Need ALL of Your Support!!!!!!

All of our work locally and Cam Hamilton is still laughing in our faces!! As Mayor he led the call for Porterville City Council to endorse Prop 8 and now as a council member (he was recently replaced as Mayor by Pete McCracken) he is calling on the Council to endorse a resolution in opposition to SB 54, which would recognize out of state same-sex marriages performed before Nov. 5th 2009. He and Brian Ward have alienated us enough!! Help us fill up this City Council Meeting with fresh faces. If you cannot make it you can write a letter and send it to me and we will read them in front of the city council. Please, we need all the support we can get.

Jamie Garza Tulare County Chapter Leader MEUSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please come and show support!! A city council cannot continue to t! ake stances on such issues without having to answer for them or without consequences. This issue affects everyone, we cannot continue to let discrimination prevail. Together we can and we will make a difference. Unite my warriors and gather in Porterville tomorrow night!

Brooke
www.gayvisalia.com &
Tulare Co. Equality Team
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cam Hamilton is at it again
Item 15 on the Agenda is a proposed resolution against SB 54 (Leno) co sponsored by Equality California.
Agenda and Item 15 info are in attached files.

http://www.ci.porterville.ca.us/ page 124-127

Where: Porterville City Hall 291 North Main Street, Porterville CA 93257
When: Oral Communications start at 7 pm sharp
We Need ALL of Your Support!!!!!!

Brock Porterville LGBTQ
559-302-8107 for more info

jessica mahoney tulare co equality team-team coordinator porterville
559-535-5003

*UPDATE TO MEETING! GO TULARE CO EQUALITY TEAM!
"Councilmen waver on new gay marriage bill
Comments 4 | Recommended1
Controversy surrounding Senate Bill 54 packed council chambers
July 22, 2009 - 10:11 AM
BY JENNA CHANDLER
THE PORTERVILLE RECORDER
Porterville city councilman rehashed a contentious issue Tuesday night -- gay marriage.

At their regular city council meeting, former mayor Cameron Hamilton proposed that they show adamant opposition to a bill circulating among state senators. The bill, No. 54, proposes that same-sex couples married outside the state and before the passage of Proposition 8, are warranted the equal recognition as married spouses in California.

This time the vote was not unanimous. By a sliver, they allowed Hamilton to draft a resolution to approve, or disapprove, at a future meeting.

“This is an emotional issue,” Brian Ward, who voted in favor, said.

On Sept. 2, 2008, the council formerly engaged with a state issue by adopting, in complete agreement, a resolution supporting Proposition 8. The ballot measure, which was passed by California voters in November, codifies that marriage in California is only between a man and a woman.

“The will of the people was taken care of when [Proposition] 8 was passed,” Hamilton said.

Since then, supporters of gay marriage and their opponents have consumed oral communications time at nearly every council meeting, tossing around opinions and dividing portions of the community.

Senator Mark Leno (D-Sacramento) drafted Bill 54 earlier this year. It also emphasizes that same-sex couples married outside the state and after the November election, have the “same rights, protections, and benefits” and are subject to “the same responsibilities” and “obligations” as spouses under California law, “with the sole exception of the designation of “marriage.”

“At this point I would not be in favor of a council-wide supported resolution,” Felipe Martinez, who voted in opposition, said.

He noted that while he had his personal beliefs, he needed to go with the will of his constituents.
Pedro Martinez, who abstained, cautioned that following Hamilton’s lead could take the council in an unfavorable activist direction.

“I’m not looking at pushing this through at this point in time,” he said.

He also said he preferred urging residents to let their senator know their opinions.

A senator typically receives opposition or support from a city council only when legislation directly affects the city, according to Leno’s Press Secretary Ali Bay.

Mayor Pete McCracken, who voted in opposition, smothered a short, but fervent, verbal scrap between Pedro Martinez and Hamilton.

“Councilmen, we’re not the Seoul Korea government,” he said.

Residents from across the county took advantage of the public hearing, filling most of the council chamber seats.

Four spoke out against the bill, while 12 declared their support.

All types of people passionately offered up their opinions, from a religious leaders to parents to doctors.

Opponents called the bill a “sleazy” and “underhanded” attempt to overturn Proposition 8.

Proponents said it was a secular step towards equal rights.

The earliest the bill will be voted on is mid-August, according to Bay.

-- Contact Jenna Chandler at 784-5000, Ext. 1050, or jchandler@portervillerecorder.com.

FROM MOLLY MCKAY
"Team -

I hope you will join me in sending out a statewide shout of support and thanks to Jamie Garza, Tulare County Chapter Leader of Marriage Equality USA and her chapter members who are doing INCREDIBLE defense work in Tulare county. Last night, they successfully defeated an attempt to pass a city council resolution opposing Senator Leno's bill which clarifies that out of state marriages performed prior to Nov 5, 2008 are valid and recognized.

By being a tenacious stand for marriage equality and putting forth their local faces, stories and vocal support at city council meeting after city council meeting - they have successfully raised doubts in the minds of their local electeds about their opposition to marriage equality - and those doubts were in today's local newspaper.

I really want to acknowledge our incredible community leaders thoughout the Central Valley - Jamie and her wife - and so many others - who are out there on the front lines, in places where many aren't out for fear for their personal safety - doing the heavy lifting and being incredibly courageous and strong - Thank you Jamie - you are an inspiration to us all !!

Let's all send good vibes to Whitney Weddell and her team in Bakersfield who are hosting the final stop on the Get Engaged Tour tomorrow night. Together, united, we are unstoppable! ! Offense/Defense = forward motion towards our goal."

"Dear Jamie,



On behalf of our senior management team at NCLR, I wanted to send you a personal thank you for your great work in standing up for the Leno bill in Tulare County. That is an important bill, and we are so grateful for your leadership in dissuading the Porterville City Council from opposing it. As someone who was born and raised in Texas, I have some inkling of what you are up against, and I have the utmost admiration for your courage.



If there is anything we can do to support you, please do not hesitate to let us know.



With admiration and respect,

Shannon Minter

Legal Director

National Center for Lesbian Rights

415-595-2125"

"I just wanted to congratulate and thank you for working so hard! I hope you get some rest before the next vote!


(I'm the new Santa Barbara chapter leader and member of our local Coalition - the Strategic Alliance for Marriage Equality).


Anna Sorensen
Graduate Student, Department of Sociology
UC Santa Barbara"

porterville city council meeting 7-7-09

http://www.recorderonline.com/video/?videoId=29012878001&lineupId=1173324681

which 2 others spoke out , me and another man but for some reason the local paper is being a bit bias now!....

this wednesday porterville is having it's 1st town hall meeting and you can bet the yes on 8 people will be out there and ready to keep thanking the city for passing there resolution last sept!

the city of porterville was the only city to sgin a marriage proclamtion to tell the city and the rest of tulare co to vote yes on prop 8 and they did this with out any say from the whole! community!

now the gay community and the people that are for civil rights for all go to every meeting that the city has! so they know! we are here and we will not put up with what they did!

so far we had one yes on 8 guy show up to a meeting and it wasn't even a regular city meeting it was one for a mosquito abatement last tuesday , he got up came to the table and set down a big o'l bible on the table and said that we need to listen to gods words and to follow gods ways
and if we can't do that then we need to change the city motto from "in god we trust" to something else!

and before he left he said his buddy dennis townsend send him down there cuz he heard what was going on down here at these meetings!

so i get up and i say i'm a lesbian, i believe in god, and if anyone would like to talk after the meeting about prop 8 or what this guy was saying i'll be glad to talk with anyone or get my e-mail out to anyone that would like to have this talk

so afther the meeting! no one came up too me!

we have a lot of education to do in porterville and tulare co!

in porterville out of the 51,468 people only 11,104 people voted! in the nov vote!

we have started phone banking, but we need a biger GOTV movement! and we need to hold are only town hall meeting on marriage equality these are all things we are working on here in tualre co and in porterville!

thats why we need you! to come out for civil rights and show this community that equality is for all! don't let one city and the churches here be the only voice heard here!

come and help us! strength in numbers!

jessica, tulare co equality team,team coordinator porterville ca

*don't care about the tile i care about working for equality*

The Porterville City Council is scheduling four community or town hall meetings to provide an opportunity for residents to ask questions or express concerns to the City Council and staff. Four meetings are proposed:




Sector 1: 7 p.m. July 27 at Sequoia Middle School.(make up dated one)


*Sector 2: 7 p.m. July 1 at Los Robles Elementary School,


Sector 3: 7 p.m. Monday June 29 at Santa Fe Elementary School (Spanish-language program).


Sector 4: 7 p.m. July 14 at Bartlett Middle School.

As vice-mayor, I encourage everyone in Porterville to take advantage of this opportunity to attend any or all of the meetings and let the council and staff know what your concerns are and what changes you would like to see.

City Council members represent the community and we need to hear what you want and need.

Pete V. McCracken

Member of the City Council

City of Porterville, Calif.

PeteMcCracken@PortervilleCA.gov

The Resolution
The council resolution reads:

WHEREAS, in 2000 over 61 percent of Californians voted in favor of Proposition 22 to reaffirm that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California; and

WHEREAS, because Proposition 22 language was not placed into the state Constitution when it was approved, four activist judges from San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote; and

WHEREAS, in November 2008, Proposition 8 will provide California voters the opportunity to reverse the court’s decision and restore the will of the people by defining marriage as between a man and a woman in the state Constitution; and

WHEREAS, in health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergartens about marriage, and Proposition 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society and safeguards the important role of a traditional family. While death, divorce and other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 8 contains the same 14 words that were previously approved by the voters of California: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” and by placing these words into the state Constitution, activist judges cannot strike them down as unconstitutional.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Porterville hereby pledges support for Proposition 8 and urges Porterville voters to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage by voting yes on Proposition 8.

Disposition: Staff direction given.

17. REQUEST BY COUNCIL MEMBER – CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION IN
SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 8

Recommendation: That the Council provide direction to staff.
Deputy City Manager Lollis introduced the item. Council Member Ward indicated that he
had requested the item, and spoke in support of Proposition 8.

Mayor Hamilton indicated that he
supported the resolution and would like the Council to challenge the County government and
incorporated cities to support Proposition 8 by resolution.

Council Member Felipe Martinez spoke

spoke
Page 9 of 11
in favor of the resolution. Vice-Mayor McCracken expressed his concern with passing a resolution

in support, and indicated that he would be more comfortable with a proclamation or letter of support.

Council Member Martinez spoke in support of Proposition 8.

COUNCIL ACTION: MOVED by Council Member Pedro Martinez, SECONDED by Council
Resolution 83-2008 Member Ward that the City Council approve the draft Resolution 83-2008

resolution in support of Proposition 8. The motion carried unanimously.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

• Dennis Townsend, 633 N. Westwood, spoke in favor of Council’s action on Item No. 17.(hey i thought he lived in springville ca)


#39 8th-September-2008
Ohso
Established Member Rep Power: 6574


Re: Radical Homosex Attack on Marriage permalink

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CCF's Marriage Proclamation passes in Porterville (Campaign for Children & Families - Weimar Kalifornia)

Taking the lead for marriage in the Central Valley is the little city of Porterville, in Tulare County, California. On Sept. 2, the Porterville City Council unanimously passed CCF's Marriage Proclamation endorsing Proposition 8, the California Marriage Amendment. And in their excitement over fighting against the California Supreme Court's homosexual "marriage" ruling, the council sent out news releases challenging other Central Valley city and county governments to also pass the Marriage Proclamation to restore marriage licenses to a man and a woman, a bride and a groom.

Put your community on the map for marriage. Download the Marriage Proclamation today PDF. Identify pro-family city councilmembers or county supervisors in your area. Then ask them to introduce and pass the Marriage Proclamation to take a public stand for marriage between a man and a woman and for Proposition 8.

Alert: Download and use the Marriage Proclamation PDF

getting hit hard agian by hate!

ok it's time agian to fight even harder now in the local porterville paper everytime someone writes a letter to the editor about no on prop 8 we get slam with yes! on 8 letters! and they never have a even amount

1st is a link to a good letter the only one so far then they slam us! with two!

http://www.recorderonline.com/articles/mental-41887-orientation-medical.html

http://www.recorderonline.com/articles/support-41903-kathryn-calling.html

http://www.recorderonline.com/opinion/voices-41902-common-friend.html

so plz comment on this write in! to the paper! slam! them back and let the city know and the paper that we will know longer put up with this!! thanks jessica tulare co equality team!

Gay.com Gay.com – Thu Jun 11, 3:46 pm ET

Throughout history, injustice has often been met with protest, taking on many different forms such as marches, rallies, boycotts, riots, hunger strikes, lawsuits, and civil disobedience. Consider the case of Dr. Martin Luther, a German theologian and Augustinian monk. On October 31st, in the year 1517, Luther, who was then a professor of Theology at the University of Wittenberg in Germany, nailed a document on the door of the “Schlosskirche” (Castle Church) located in Wittenberg.

This document now known as the “95 Thesis” was a response in protest to the selling of indulgences by the Catholic Church. This act of protest brought about the beginning of significant change within the Church as a whole and inspired the Protestant Reformation.

Today, we are engaged in a struggle for change yet again, as the State tries to define the meaning of the word marriage and who among us has the rights to the benefits of such an alliance. Before we can decide the question of who has the rights to marry, we must ask the question “Who has the right to decide what the definition of marriage is?â€

fulfill their inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We have standing for our argument in the Nations’ founding documents. Further standing for the argument against Proposition 8 can be made on the grounds that marriage is a civil matter, with licenses being issued by the State and not the Church. Support for our position can also be found in the Bible, when you consider that the concept of marriage is about loving another person. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians writes:

“Love is patient and kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. Love is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, and it keeps no records of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but delights in truth. Love always protects, love always trusts. Love always hopes, love always perseveres, and love never ends. Three gifts have been given to us—they are faith, hope and love—and the greatest of these is love. Therefore, make love your aim.” 1st Corinthians, Chapter 13

And so, we, the Gay and Lesbian citizens of the State of California, seeking only to love one another and live self-determined lives, enumerate the following truths as we define our rights and defend our argument against Proposition 8:

1. We, the Gay and Lesbian citizens of the State of California, a State of the United States of America, being subject to the laws and regulations of both State and Union, are bound together with our brother and sister citizens in the words of our Founding Fathers, that all men are created Equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as granted by the Declaration of Independence, which was signed by the U.S. Congress on July 4th, 1776.

2. We are entitled to live in peace along with our brothers and sisters, free from the confines of religious persecution, and are also entitled to enjoy the separation of Church and State, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified on December 15, 1791.

3. We are entitled to worship God as we see fit, or not, and to seek out our own truth, without the interference from peripheral or literal interpretations of the Bible.

4. We, being citizens of both State and Union, are bound by the rule of the laws of this State and Union, and therefore are entitled to the same rights and privileges as our brothers and sisters who are granted such rights by those laws. We do not seek special rights, only equal rights justly applied.

5. We are required to pay taxes to both the State and Union, and therefore should be equally accorded all the rights of certain privileges and tax benefits given to our brother and sister citizens, whether through business or personal associations.

6. We are entitled to the right of self-determination, and as such are entitled to decide how best to fulfill our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so long as we abide by the laws of the State and Union, contribute to the general welfare, and do not engage in the harming of other persons.

7. We are entitled to live out the truth of our lives openly, honestly, and with respect and dignity, so that we may achieve our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the interference of governments, churches, associations, or individuals who seek to dehumanize and demonize us.

8. We are entitled to equal protection under the law, when it comes to employment, housing, education, and other such necessary social services and activities that relate to our contribution to the general welfare of both the State and Union.

9. We are entitled to protection under the law, when our security and general welfare are being threatened with physical and mental violence, including such protections which would be classified under hate-crime laws.

10. We have the right to seek protection as a minority class and to seek the protections granted to other minority groups through the laws of the State and the Union, which include, but are not limited to, such legislation as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

11. We are entitled to choose our partners or spouses, free from the interference of governments, churches, associations, and individuals who might consider such relationships harmful or detrimental to the general welfare. Our right to self-determination supersedes the right of such entities to decide how we are to live our lives, who we choose to live with, and how we contribute to our own well being.

12. We are entitled to due process when it comes to the implementation of rights which are granted or denied by initiative or electoral processes, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

13. We are entitled to a review of due process when governments, churches, associations, and individuals impose certain limitations and regulations upon the citizens of our community through initiative, electoral, or judicial processes.

14. We, being full-fledged citizens of the State and Union, and having the right to self-determination, are entitled to enjoy the separation of Church and State, and as such, are not bound by any religious definition of marriage, and as such are entitled to enjoy the benefits of partnerships which are granted to our brothers and sisters through the act of civil marriage.

15. We are not bound by a spiritual requirement to enjoy the benefits of civil partnership or marriage. Neither are our brothers and sisters. Churches may impose a spiritual requirement on the sacrament of marriage, but are limited from imposing their will upon civil ceremonies as granted by the separation of Church and State. Therefore, the Church’s authority over marriage is not valid.

16. We are entitled to the same reproductive rights as our brothers and sisters, and as such, so long as we abide by the laws of the State and Union, and contribute to the general welfare through the payment of taxes, have the right to raise our children without the interference of governments, churches, associations, and individuals who may consider such family relationships harmful or detrimental. Each family, so long as all are citizens of the State and Union, contributes to the general welfare, and does not engage in the harming of other persons, has that right to self-determination.

17. We are entitled to the same right of privacy granted to our brothers and sisters, and as such, have the right to determine the course of our relationships without the interference of governments, churches, associations, and individuals who may consider such relationships harmful or detrimental, so long as such privacy does not endanger or harm other persons, nor violate the laws of the State or Union.

18. We are entitled to the enjoyment of economic prosperity through the efforts of our labors, and through the efforts of our own self-determination.

19. We have the right to seek, through all civil and political spheres, changes which we deem necessary in order to gain new rights, benefits, and protections from harm, in order to secure our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as our right to self-determination.

20. We have the right to contribute to the general welfare of our State and Union, and as such, should be accorded the right to serve in the armed forces of the United States of America openly, in a dignified and respectable manner. It is the self-determined right of every person to defend their Nation.

21. We, being entitled to equal treatment under the law, are also entitled to equal treatment as our brothers and sisters in the arenas of medical care and decisions, insurance coverage, adoption, workers compensation, victim’s rights, lawsuits, property, probate, inheritance, and other such rights granted to married heterosexual partners.

22. We have the right to redress unnecessary and illegal persecution and discrimination from the citizens of the State, and have the right to address our grievances in Courts of Law, the State Assembly, the United States Congress, the electoral process, and if necessary through civil disobedience.

23. We have the right to seek corrections in laws which contain persecution and discriminatory language which are achieved through the abuse of judicial and electoral processes that were meant to protect the rights of the citizens of the State and Union, and as such have the right to seek out the changes necessary to ensure our right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and self-determination.

24. We have the right to correct the injustice brought upon us through the course of Proposition 8, and the California Supreme Court decision of May 26, 2009, and as such will seek to address our concerns through the electoral and legal processes with the help of our sympathetic brothers and sisters who agree with our cause.

25. We, the Gay and Lesbian citizens of the State of California, have the right to ensure that any attempt to deny us basic civil liberties in the future will be met with our fullest efforts, through the Courts of Law, to secure that which we deem is necessary to fulfill our right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and self-determination.

The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the entitlement to enjoy them were granted to all citizens of the Nation, not just a select class. These are the basic tenants of freedom and are irrevocable. It is unconstitutional to take away a persons right to self-determination, and yet today, the Gay and Lesbian citizens of California are being forced to surrender their self-determination to the whim of the voters while Proposition 8 remains in effect. Perhaps it is time to visit the door of your local church once again.

Ken Potter is a freelance musician, singer, and composer living in the Los Angeles area. He is an accomplished keyboard player and arranges for vocal groups all across the country. Aside from that, he lives a quiet life. He is hoping this article reaches the ears of the religious community all over the state. This article is his first venture into the political arena.

so i read this blog and it made me mad!
the leaders are US everyone that is going out! talking to people in places that was never brought up before!

we have are orders we know what needs to be done!

i guess this guy wasn't at meet in the middle nor the meeting that sunday!....or learn from last time what is needed this time around!
come to the central valley buddy we need more help come out of your gay mecca!...

http://sfappeal.com/news/2009/06/whats-bothering-michael-petrelis-now.php

PLEASE FORWARD BY EMAIL, FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, TEXT MESSAGE, TWITTER, HOWEVER YOU CAN!!!!

It’s the best years of your life they want to steal!


As most of you may know, the Porterville City Council went above and beyond its First Amendment responsibilities in using City Resources to campaign for Prop 8 last fall.

Under the cover of darkness, they passed a resolution urging Portervillians to vote in favor of Prop 8.

They were the only City Council in the entire State to take such a hateful position!

Once the word got out, we filled the next City Council meeting with speaker after speaker during the public comment hearing to force them to listen to individual testimonies about how their hate mongering hurt real live people.

The next meeting is this coming Tuesday June 16, 2009 at 7PM at City Hall on Main Street in Porterville, and you are needed to put a human face on the issue again.

This is true, whether you live in Porterville or not. If you work here, if you shop here, if you went to school here, if your friend or family did any of these things, or if you think you ever might, you are affected by what has been done by the Council AND THEY NEED TO HEAR ABOUT IT.

Last time, thanks to your help, gay, straight, young and old, Council heard the truth, and so did the world. 2 TV stations were present, at least one newspaper, and video for online was made too.

Episode 2 is next Tuesday.

YOU CAN BE SURE THE PRO-H8-ERS IN TOWN WILL BE OUT IN FORCE THANKING THE COUNCIL FOR THEIR "BRAVE AND PRINCIPLED AND CORRECT STAND".

Do not let that be the majority voice the Council will hear!!!!

***
Let Fury Rule the Hour
Anger Can Be Power
Do You Know that You Can Use It?
***

Who is invited: Everyone, gay, straight, friends, family. anyone who understands the number one principle about America is that we don't take affirmed rights away from people, not at all, and especially not because of a majority vote in a single election.

Age: 6-100

When: 7PM

Where: Porterville City Hall, Main Street

What: Speak for up to 3-5 minutes before Porterville City Council about how having your rights, or your loved one's rights, taken away, or potentially taken away, and how it hurts Porterville as a City when our Council propagates hate under the guise of official government business.

You can speak for 15 seconds of until they cut you off, I don't care, but I want as many people as possible to show up and speak, I want to see at least 100 people, whether they are from PFLAG, local gay straight alliances, whoever, wherever. Vislalia, Tulare, come on over. We are making Porterville the center point for same sex marriage rights in the Valley, for all of you, and we can't do it without your support.

I especially want to see high school sophomores, juniors, and seniors, who were not old enough to vote last time, but will be by November 2010 or November 2012.

Just be there, even if you think you won't want to speak. Council will know why you are there, even if you don't say a word.

How it works: After the pledge of allegiance, the Mayor will say that there is no an open comment period if anyone has anything to explain. One by one, until there are no more, everyone can go up, state their name and hometown (some people give their street address, but I don't and it is not necessary), and then they speak from the heart. You can use notes or read what you have to say if it helps.

The Council members are supposed to only listen and not make comments in return. Tell them how you feel! Do not hold back!

After the comments, Council will conduct its regular meeting. There is another open comment period and everyone can speak again. In theory they can cut people off around 11 and adjourn the meeting, but I think politically that would be unwise for them to do if a lot of people are waiting to speak.

I would like everyone to stay until the 2nd comment period and speak again on what occurred to you while you heard the others speak.

I know it will be late, and I know you have to go to school or work in the morning. But fighting for your rights is hard work, and sometimes that means staying up late and missing a bit of sleep!

You need not be out to make comments, and you will not be outing yourself by speaking.

You may be nervous or scared, this is natural. No matter how shy you are, you can do it. Even if your entire speech is "I am (your name), a voting citizen of Porterville, and what you have done is wrong", that is enough!


Why: Goes without saying, but I am going to say it anyway.

California now has 3 classes of people where there should be 1:

- People who can marry their loved ones anytime
- People who can never marry their loved ones on the basis of being homosexual
- People who are already married, but because they are homosexual, should they become single again through either divorce or death of spouse, can never marry again

In addition, we have learned, that in California, the rights of *any* minority exist only so long so dudes with a clipboard don;'t think working for minimum wage to collect signatures on a ballot measure to take them away is a good use of their time. It was a good enough use of their time last year though, and it will be again - times are tough!

Value: If the news from the Supreme Court has not completely radicalized you, attending this meeting will. Democracy means face to face discussions, and this is the way to do it.

Directions: 65 N or S to Henderson Avenue exit, heading EAST. About 1 mile to Main Street, turn right. About 4/4 mile on right is City Hall, just past Bank of America.

Do not let this opportunity to help persuade the world what is right pass you by!

***
No man born with a living soul
Can be working for the clampdown



The voices in your head are calling
Stop wasting your time, there’s nothing coming
Only a fool would think someone could save you


The men at the factory are old and cunning
You don’t owe nothing, so boy get runnin’
It’s the best years of your life they want to steal

http://www.portervillenerd.com/

so after prop 8 was upheld that following tuesday was the 1st porterville city council meeting, so we the people in the community, the ones that are left out and are not the so called marjoity in town thought we go down to the city and ask them agian to apologize for being the only city in the state to go on record to fully sgin a marriage proclamation there resolution to support prop 8 back last sept!. that they got from the campaign for children and families(ccf)

for more check this out! thanks

http://www.recorderonline.com/news/council-41644-grassroots-sex.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/06/residents-say-citys-support-for-proposition-8-hurting-them.html

http://www.portervillenerd.com/

Porterville Unified looking at possible staff cuts
Comments 1 | Recommend 1


Totals: 19 teachers receive notification.
March 11, 2009 - 12:47 PM

By ANITA STACKHOUSE-HITE
THE PORTERVILLE RECORDER
Nearly 20 teachers may not have jobs next year in Porterville as the community's largest school district wrestles with a tight budget and declining enrollment.

That's because not enough people accepted the Porterville Unified School District administration's invitation to retire early, something that could have helped change the budget outlook, district officials said.

The district had 26 people who accepted the early retirement with its incentives as of Friday's deadline, district officials report.

Ken Gibbs, assistant superintendent for business services, said officials have taken the best measures they could under the present budgetary circumstances. The retirees won't be replaced at this time, he said.

"Currently, we have modest flexibility in the state budget, and I'm not sure if the district can use it," Gibbs said. "We have reduced positions at the high school level by consolidating 18 positions that we don't have to refill, and we're revisiting student loads."

Superintendent John Snavely said 19 certificated staff members were informed last week that they may not be retuning.

"It's horrible, it's heartbreaking, crushing to have to give notices to such hardworking people," Snavely said. "My heart goes out to these individuals, but it is our goal to bring back as many of these teachers as possible."

If you have not yet been notified about the loss of a job, you won't be, Snavely said.

Gibbs addressed the issue of the lack of what was supposed to be a state budget with more flexibility, as he looked for ways to cut expenses.

For class size reduction in kindergarten to third grade, the district receives additional funds for 20 or fewer students. More than 20, Gibbs said, causes a double penalty that was not the governor's intent in his proposal.

"The proposed flexibility is out now, unless something changes," Gibbs said. "The double penalty includes, one, the percentage reduction, and two, another interpretation added by legislators that for every student over the limit the district gets no funds."

The percentage reduction, simply put, means, for example, if you have one student more than 20 in a classroom the district is penalized 5 percent; 22 students means a penalty of 10 percent, and so on up to 30 percent, Gibbs said.

Now, Gibbs said, for every student over the limit of 20, the district gets no funds, in addition to the 5-percent up to 30-percent penalty.

To add to budget woes, the district, Snavely said, has lost 169 students into the budget year.

"Predicting enrollment is always a guessing game," Snavely said, "but enrollment is down. There doesn't seem to be a particular pattern to it, but I know Burton [School District] has some of the high school students.

"That's one more argument of the benefit of the [two] districts merging. If Burton gains at our expense, that is not good for the community. If we gain at Burton's expense, that is not good for the community."

Snavely said he received numerous e-mails from teachers willing to take pay cuts to help save the 19 jobs.

Whether that is a viable scenario remains to be seen.

"We expect this situation to continue for the next year or two," Snavely said. "But we're very fortunate that we have good reserves, and that the board has taken action to put us in as good a position as we could to prepare for a situation like this."

-- Contact Anita Stackhouse-Hite at 784-5000, Ext. 1043, or astackouse-hite@portervillerecorder.com.


http://www.recorderonline.com/news/uncertain_40486___article.html/people_accepted.html

Saturday, March 07, 2009
another e-mail from the mayor of porterville!
Current mood: blank
Category: Life
ok i woke up the day before the prop 8 hearing and i had this thought in my head to send this to the mayor of porterville ca! and he wrote me back to night! 1st i will share what i send him then ather that, is what he send me tonight thanks for reading! and plz help pass the word around that marriage equality is for all! loving couples!
   Read More »

Thursday, September 18, 2008
no on prop 8 and the city council hate!
Current mood: aggravated
Category: News and Politics
In case you havn't heard:

According to the Campaign for Children & Families(CCF), who are terribly anti-gay, on Sept. 2, the Porterville City Council unanimously passed CCF's Marriage Proclamation endorsing Proposition 8, the California Marriage Amendment , "taking the lead in the Central Valley in endorsing Prop 8." For those of you who do not know, Prop 8 is an anti-gay marriage ammendment that would ban gays and lesbians from marriage. If you are interested in writing letters of disapproval to our City Council, please do so.
Let's let them know we are here and that their secracy in this process is an outrage!

City Council Members:

Cameron J.
Hamilton
Felipe A.
Martinez
Pedro Martinez
Pete McCracken
Eduardo Hernandez

Address:
Porterville City Hall
291 N. Main St.

Porterville, CA 93257

Phone :
559 782-7466

Watch for my bullitons!! I am in the process of organizing a visibility action for No on Prop 8, and protest of our City Council's endorsment this weekend.

And Please Repost this to all of your friends!

Porterville LGBTQ

** so i e-mail every council person and so far the mayor of porterville wrote back! here is his e-mail!
Re: NO ON PROP 8!

Wednesday, September 17, 2008 8:41 AM

From:



"cameron hamilton"

To:

"jessica-mahoney"



Your agrument is fundamentally flawed, this is not a question of equality, this is a question of procreation and moral behavior. The debate never puts forth the facts of the degenerative act of homosexual activity. The peoples will in prop 22 were upsurped by an activist judge who desenfranchised the vote of a 61% majority. This isnt even a question of tolerance, as the homosexuals already have the rights to do the things you purpose you cant, like visitation in hospitals, inheritance, and life insurance, all of which can already be attained. Your organization has done a great job in cloulding the real issue, but I believe most Californians will see though this on election day. Just a side note I have a sibling that is a lesbian and a cousin that is a male gay, my love for and caring of them is not changed by the Marriage Protection Act that I support. Good luck with your campaign, I respect your opinion and right to argue your point as I hope you will do the same with mine, however for the most part if we disagree with the Homosexual agenda you very aggresively lable us as homophobes!
Ignoring the facts doesnt make it any less factual
Cam Hamilton

----- Original Message ----
From: jessica-mahoney
To: cjhamilton@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 10:13:13 PM
Subject: NO ON PROP 8!


I CAN'T BELIEVE THE CITY WOULD DENY AND SUPPORT NON-EQUALITY FOR ALL!

Our History, Our Coalition

The laws of our great State of California should not be used to treat people unfairly. That's why the "NO on 8, Equality For All" campaign was formed more than three years ago.

Our large and diverse coalition was formed in response to political and religious extremists who seek to deny marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples and use it as a wedge issue to divide our communities.

What began as Equality for All, today is the NO on 8, Equality for All campaign. This campaign includes LGBT community organizations and leaders and our allies, including civil rights organizations, faith leaders and groups, choice organizations, organized labor and community of color organizations.

Over the past three years, we've built the strongest and most diverse statewide coalition in our community's history. We now have in place a campaign team with unprecedented experience and an ever-growing volunteer corps that brings inspirational enthusiasm and energy to defeat Prop 8. But this is a defining moment in our history, and we need you to be part of that team by becoming one of our fantastic volunteers, donating and taking the Vow to Vote No on Prop 8 and encouraging your friends, family, neighbors, co-workers and everyone you know to do the same.

FAQs

Aren't domestic partnerships basically the same as marriage? Why do same-sex couples need "marriage"?

Marriage is not simply a bundle of legal rights and responsibilities. It is something much more profound and fundamental. It is the institution through which society gives dignity and respect to the lifelong commitment of a loving couple. Domestic partnerships and marriage are simply not the same. No one grows up dreaming of getting "domestic partnered."

There are significant legal differences between domestic partnerships and marriage. For example, public employees cannot obtain long-term health care benefits for their domestic partners, whereas they can do so for spouses. And that's just one example.

In our society, domestic partners are not treated with the same automatic recognition and respect as legally married spouses. For example, in medical emergencies, it is not at all uncommon for the attending staff to deny a domestic partner the same recognition as a spouse. They may refuse to allow partners to ride in an ambulance or be in the emergency room with their injured or ill loved one, or to make crucial life or death decisions for them. Part of the protection marriage provides is that everyone automatically understands and knows what it means to be married. In contrast, many people do not know or understand what it means to be in a domestic partnership.

What about civil unions?

There is no real difference between what some other states call civil unions and what California calls registered domestic partnerships. Civil unions and California domestic partnerships are essentially the same. Neither one provides the security, dignity or equality of marriage.

Didn't Californians vote on this already when Prop 22 was passed? How can judges be allowed to overrule that vote?

Prop 22 passed eight years ago -- in 2000 -- and public opinion polls tell us that the attitudes of the people of California toward marriage for same-sex couples have dramatically changed since then. Some polls even show a majority in support of marriage equality. So with respect to Prop 22, that was then and this is now.

In addition, our state constitution now guarantees the fundamental freedom to marry to all couples. All the Supreme Court did was recognize this basic freedom, just as they did many years ago when they struck down the ban on interracial marriage.

Isn't Prop 8 unconstitutional since marriage for same-sex couples is legal?

The California Constitution now guarantees marriage equality for same-sex couples. Prop 8 would change the California Constitution to take that freedom away and to mandate that government treat same-sex couples differently from everyone else. If Prop 8 passes, it could be challenged under the federal constitution, but there are no guarantees that such a case would be successful. That is why Prop 8 must be defeated at the ballot box.

How will we win this?

We will win by being strategic and focused, and by mobilizing our entire community -- including allies, family and friends -- to speak up for fairness and equality. Polls show that the single most important factor in whether a person supports the freedom to marry is whether they personally know a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person. More urgently than ever before, we need every member of our community to come out to their neighbors, co-workers, family members and friends and urge them to Vote No on Prop 8. We have also put together a highly experienced and accomplished campaign team that is using sophisticated research to identify undecided voters, so we can persuade them to support freedom and fairness. It won't be easy, but this is a fight we can win.

How much will this campaign cost?

We need to raise considerable funds to defeat Prop 8. Our opponents are claiming they will spend as much as $20 million trying to deny basic freedom to same-sex couples. We must match them dollar for dollar in order to win.

What will we do if we lose?

With your help, we won't lose. But you can be sure that win or lose, the fight for the freedom for all couples to get married will continue past Election Day.

Why are LGBT people fighting so hard for marriage?

Marriage equality speaks to the very core of who we are as human beings. This is about who we love and how our government treats our long-term committed relationships. Same-sex couples wish to marry for the same reason straight couples wish to do so -- in order to express their love and commitment to their partner. Marriage has enormous personal and social significance for LGBT people, just as it does for others. And LGBT people also wish to be treated equally and to have the same basic freedoms as others. Marriage is a fundamental freedom, and should be enjoyed equally by all.

Will churches that refuse to perform weddings for same-sex couples lose their tax-exempt status or be in danger of having their clergy and leaders arrested?

No. There is an important difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. Religious groups and clergy members have a constitutionally protected right to recognize or refuse to recognize religious marriages based on the tenets of their particular faith. That has not changed and will not change. But the government can't treat same-sex couples differently when issuing civil marriage licenses or solemnizing civil marriages.

Don't kids do better when they have both a father and a mother?

Children do best in a loving, stable and supportive family environment, regardless of what form that family may take. There are many children who are raised in families that don't fit this narrow definition -- single parent households, kids raised by grandparents or other relatives, and families headed by same-sex couples -- who are happy and healthy and who grow up to be successful adults.

Won't this force schools to teach that marriage for same-sex couples is the same as "traditional" marriage?

Local school districts and parents develop health education programs for their schools. In addition, no child can be taught anything relating to family and health against the will of their parents. California law prohibits it.   Read More »