Porterville City Council to Vote on Resolution Opposing SB 54
| By jessica - Aug 1st, 2009 at 12:13 pm PDT |
| Also listed in: Visalia Equality Team - Courage Crusaders |
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.”
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.”
Comments are closed for this post.
Link
Link
Link