The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - February 2, 2000 E-09I CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Resolution to Support Passage of Proposition 22 "California Protection of Marriage Initiative" MEETING DATE: February 2, 2000 SUBMITTED BY: City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution to support Proposition 22 (California Protection of Marriage Initiative) BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The initiative to protect marriages in California is an initiative supported by a bipartisan coalition of Democrats, Republicans and Independents, civic and community organizations, church groups and thousands of every day Californians who believe that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". These 14 words which are the entire text of the Proposition will appear on the March 7, 200 primary ballot as Proposition 22. Information provided by supporters of Proposition 22 is attached for your information. FUNDING: Not Applicable APPROVED: Respectfully, H. Dixon Flynn City Manager H. Dixon Flynn -- City Manager California Protection of Marriage Initiative California Pr r k" oo Back to Home. Page. Official Ballot Statement IN FAVOR of Proposition 22 Dear Fellow Voter: I'm a 20 -year-old woman voting for only the second time on March 7th. I'm proud, excited, and a bit nervous, because I take my civic responsibilities seriously. Not only that, but among millions of people supporting Proposition 22, the Protection of Marriage Initiative, I have the honor of writing you to explain why Californians should vote "Yes" on 22. Proposition 22 is exactly 14 words long: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That's it! No legal doubletalk, no hidden agenda. Just common sense: Marriage should be between a man and a woman. It does not take away anyone's right to inheritance or hospital visitation. When people ask, "Why is this necessary?" I say that even though California law already says only a man and a woman may marry, it also recognizes marriages from other states. However, judges in some of those states want to define marriage differently than we do. If they succeed, California may have to recognize new kinds of marriages, even though most people believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. California is not alone in trying to keep marriage between a man and a woman. In 1996, Democrats and Republicans in Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill saying that the U.S, government defines marriage as between a man and a woman only, and said each state could do the same. President Clinton signed the bill the day after he received it. So far, 30 states have passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Now it's our turn, and I'm voting "Yes" on 22 to ensure that decisions affecting California are voted on by Californians ... like us. It's Our State, it should be Our Choice. But some people today think marriage doesn't matter anymore. They say I have to accept that marriage can mean whatever anyone says it means, and if I don't agree then I'm out of touch, even an extremist. My family taught me to respect other people's freedoms. Everyone should. But that's a two way street. If people want me to respect their opinions and lifestyles, then they should grant me the same courtesy by respecting MY beliefs. And I believe that marriage should stay the way it is. It's tough enough for families to stay together these days. Why make it harder by Page 1 of 2 http://www.protectmarriage.net/stmentl.html 1/25/00 California Protection of Marriage Initiative telling children that marriage is just a word anyone can re -define again and again until it no longer has any meaning? Marriage is an important part of our lives, our families and our future. Someday I hope to meet a wonderful man, marry and have children of my own. By voting "Yes" on 22, I'm doing my part today to keep that dream alive. Please, for all future generations, vote "Yes" on 22. Miriam G. Santacruz We couldn't have said it better! As representatives of seniors, teachers and parents, we are proud to join Californians from all walks of life voting "Yes" on 22. Signed by: Jeanne Murray 60 Plus Association Gary Beckner Association of American Educators Thomas Fong Chinese Family Alliance Back to Home Page The Protection of Marriage Initiative is supported by a Contact the Campaign bipartisan coalition of Democrats, Republicans and Independents; civic and community organizations, church 1121 L Street, Suite 810 groups and thousands of every day Californians. Over 700,000 Sacramento, CA 95814 registered voters have said "YES" by signing petitions to place Phone: (916) 441-1010 the Protection of Marriage Initiative on the March 2000 primary ballot. For further information, please contact us. Copyright @1999 Protection of Marriage Committee. campaigni-iciftrotectmarriage.net. Page 2 of 2 http://www.protectmarriage.net/stmentl.html 1/25/00 M E M O R A N D U M F R O M T H E O F F I C E O F T H E C I T Y A T T O R N E Y DATE: February 9, 2000 TO: Alice M. Reimche, City Clerk FROM: Randy Hays, City Attorn �Y RE: Vote Characterization Apparently during the Council discussion of Proposition 22 at its meeting held February 2nd, Council Member Hitchcock after some presentation indicated she would be abstaining from the vote. At that point she left her Council station and took a seat in the audience. While there are no doubt various ways to approach this, it would appear that this circumstance is governed by §2.04.140 of the Lodi Municipal Code. That particular section reads as follows: "All members of the Council, when present, must vote. If a member of the Council states that he is not voting, his silence shall be recorded as an affirmative vote unless, however, the Council Member abstains from voting by reason of his/her interest in the matter before the Council and that reason is stated at the meeting." In addition to the Municipal Code language, the City has adopted a form relative to ordinances and resolutions, which provides for recognizing abstentions and absences. Under the particular facts of this circumstance and based upon the City Code language, it is my recommendation that you show Council Member Hitchcock as having abstained on the resolution. cc: City Council City Manager \\LOD IN TS40ENT001\DEPART MENTS\ADMINIST RATION \C A\CITY\C ORRES\V GTE CH AR.DOC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF THE PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 22, "THE CALIFORNIA PROTECTION OF MARRIAGES INITIATIVE" BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lodi City Council does hereby support Proposition 22. This measure provides that only a marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California. Dated: February 2, 2000 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2000-11 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held February 2, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Land, Nakanishi, Pennino and Mann (Mayor) NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock ALICE M. RE MCHE City Clerk 2000-11 ;vanuary YOy 2000 Councilman Steve Mann We strongly object to the City Council addressing or voting on the issues of Propostion 22. The Council is elected to deal with the business functions of the city, not to represent the citizens on personal issues. The Council should have no discussion concerning personal individual decisions particularly on an issue as,deliberately hot -button and divisive as Prop. 22. Such an action can only hurt and divide this community. Such discussion belongs with individuals in context of their moral guidance. Registered voters will have their opportunity to declare their opinions on March :7th without inappropriate directive from the city council. We believe that discussion of Prop. 22 should be removed from the city council agenda. enn E. obison Patricia G. Robison 1056 Mason St. Lodi, Ca 95242