I attended last night's meeting which up until the point of Mr. Penta's inflammatory comments was quite respectful and expressed the concerns of many in the community that this was a social agenda being pushed under the guise of a rate schedule issue. It was clear that the intent of Mr. Penta's comments along with those of his family was an attempt to create a confrontational atmosphere.

it sure is tough to live in cuyahoga falls...

I will provide more input in the near future as I have privately written John Dieke about the content of this article. But in the mean time I want everyone in the public to know I attended last nights meeting and this article does not reflect the positive, caring disposition of the good citizens of our city that defended marriage. The only intolerant or personal comments came from the few in the audience who were opposed to marriage as the Natatorium, State Constitution, DOMA and most religions define it. Nor does this article report the intent of those defending marriage for constitutional reasons, out of love for their community, and because they passionately believe in marriage and family. This was a great example of discourse over a very sensitive issue. I am proud of those who spoke out last night and pleased for the most part on how Chairman Tim Gorbach handled the meeting. It was proud to be a part of this debate.

So Waterworks has a rate schedule based on the number of adults in a household. But the Natatorium does not. Adopt a rate schedule by number of adults in the household. Then Cuyahoga Falls stops descriminating against unmarried couples, widowed mother and daughter living together, etc. Why are people preaching religion so intolerant?

Please stop asking people to suspend their first amendment rights. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Last night a young boy said the Constitution was old, basically say it was outdated. But that is not true. We need to make sure we educate on the Constitution better in our schools. You have the right to speak what you believe in. But you do not have the right to suppress my religious freedom and expressing it even in public. The Constitution was not written to keep religion, God, the Bible or other faiths out of the public arena. Rather to keep government out of the religious arena. When you touch on social issues in the political arena, the government crosses the line into religion. Marriage is closely connected with the Bible. In fact the idea of marriage comes from the Bible, it comes from God. So when the government crosses into this domain, religion should push back. It is part of the intent of the framers of our way of governing. So to everyone out there...read the Constitution...you will not find freedom "from" or "a wall of separation" anywhere in the Constitution. You will find "FREEDOM OF". Religion/Faith should be expressed, not suppressed.

It makes NO sense at all (and the excuses can be spared) to have different rate structures/definition for different recreational facilities. That's just further proof that the Nat's rate "structure" is too structured and complex.
Make it adults and be done with it. One should not have to follow something that resembles an Excel chart/graph to figure out what rate(s) they qualify for.
I find it funny that the "faith folks" -- being the hypocrites that they constantly are -- play the "social agenda" scare card. Unlike the "agenda" you're (almost) constantly trying to inflict upon everyone else -- as if everyone must follow YOUR beliefs -- as many were doing at this meeting (but, of course, they'll never admit it because they're not smart enough to see it, as usual. Just like the partisan hacks).
Plus, how many of the people in attendance are actually members of the Nat? And if you're not, then WTF do you care? How will this affect you? Oh, it won't. But, some of you need to make sure your "agenda" is upheld. But none of that is relevant (but, of course there will be some who will insist that it is, only to further prove their hypocrisy and agenda-pushing).

The city has 2 different rate structures/definitions for recreational facilities. THAT is now the issue. The current structure has worked for years at Waterworks (but, I'm sure that will now pose a "problem" by the same, clueless "social agenda" card players).

Mr. Kinnan, additional research would have shown you that legal counsel has already declared the Nat would not be in violation of state law in modifying their rate structure. And Mr. "Christopher", no one is telling you to suspend your religious beliefs, only not to use them to decide who should or should not receive fair and equal treatment.

Oh, and Mr. Olesky, I think religious zealots are usually intolerant because their interpretation of holy documents, such as the Bible, convince them that there is only one way to lead a spiritual life, and all others are damned/doomed. Think of all the wars that have been fought, and lives that have been lost, in the name of organized religion. Trying to force your own beliefs upon others does not spell "FREEDOM" to me.

Well said and accurate Larry.

The comments from Councilman Mader in this article simply infuriate me. I apologize for the fact that my husband fell three times in the past two days and was in no shape to come. He also suffers from severe PTSD which I felt would not help him to sit in a room full of 60+ individuals while we are publicily bashed for being who we are. My husband did his part to defend our Constitution while he was in war. Half of you do not even know what a soldier goes through while being deployed and for you, Councilman Mader, to criticize a soldier is completely uncalled for. Shame on you. Before making judgements about a wounded soldier why not try going and getting yourself shot at and blown up in another country then you can talk about him all you want.

Shane, this is why I have written the editor about this article. When I read this article, I questioned if John was in the same meeting. Mr. Mader was very respectful in all that he said. No one bashed anyone. No one made judgments about a wounded soldier. Mr. Mader, as well as myself and many others in the room are veterans. Some serving in various wars and time periods in US History. Mr. Mader would applaud Cody's service, as do I. I had the honor to lead some fine men and women in the military domestic and foreign. Shane I assure you that the article misrepresents Mr. Mader's comments and intent. Also, know that the emotion with which you write is understandable, this is very close to you, no one did any of those things that have you upset. I thank Cody for his service. Best to you.

Hey folks, thanks for your comments so far. I respectfully disagree with claims that my article was inaccurate. I urge anyone to obtain a copy of the minutes of the meeting to see what was said. Best regards.

Many residents and the city are missing the point that this is not just about gay rights, it's also that anyone who has a domestic relationship whether gay or straight , or if theyre unmarried, with kids, are subject to discrimination, just to supply more revenue to the city. Im a Christian, the 1st thing I was taught was to love everyone, the 2nd was not to judge. Others using their religious beliefs are not heeding these two very prominent principles. Its basic human decency not to discriminate in the name of money and hatred. It involves many others who can't join at a fair undiscriminatory rate as well. I'm sure The Mays would have been there, it's been stated many times that one of them is severely injured. Why expect them to come to defend an issue they've already been quite clear on, and subject themselves to more media glare and hatred? Theyve been brave enough. The Falls is behind the times and bigoted. Why create an unwelcoming community that only people who don't want change to come live in. And we all know that change happens, we can't stop time. Isn't it time to love your neighbor, and not judge? C'mon people, love each other, don't be so sold on your own beliefs that you forget what real love is. This man was injured serving our country, and you're just turning your backs on him when he needs therapy close to home. And what about the families that are unmarried but truly love each other, with kids? It's clear this issue is about hatred and money.

Larry, I think you have expressed your opinion several times already. I'm not here to change your mind, also, you are being unfair to assume I was not in attendance. You don't even know who I am, or if I signed in. I was not commenting on the meeting specifically, as you read, but didn't process, I was commenting largely on the entire issue. You've had plenty of posts...why the need to debate my post or any others? If you truly are a follower of our faith, you know love and non judgement are key tenets that Jesus spoke of. As a Christian, I cannot do anything other to welcome the Mays and others who are unfairly discriminated against and to love them as we should abiding in our faith. When I was speaking of hatred, bigotry, and money, I was commenting not on the meeting, but on the entire matter at hand. The people who don't want the Mays adopt want them expressly because they are gay. That is not love, no matter how people hide behind their faith, and it is hatred and judgement of people that don't conform to their idea. Jesus never said anywhere in the Bible,, turn your back on gays.

Since some are saying what Jesus would or wouldn't do...we need to examine the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for an accurate position. We will discover that Jesus was very compassionate and loving. But we also discover that Jesus never condoned sin. In fact in his interaction with those who had fallen short of God's ways He always addressed their sin and most left His presence changed. Consider the Woman at the Well, or Zacheaus, or Adulterous woman etc. Christ was always calling people to follow Him, to become more like God in all of their ways. A person can be loving and compassionate and not condone something. Jesus never did that, as His disciples (those of us who follow Him) shouldn't either. My remarks are not intended to pursued you Jan, but to provide an accurate picture. We are to love and not judge a person as in their eternal standing, but God does provide His Word to teach us right and wrong. I don't expect you to agree or understand, but I wanted to clarify this truth from the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life.

Sanctimonious crap. When you started talking "sin", you just lost your credibility. For you to pronounce that any child of God is a sinner because of the way they were born just proclaims ignorance.

I'm disgusted by people who hide behind "faith" as an excuse for bigotry & intolerance. Kudos to Mike Penta for calling them out on it in public - truth hurts, doesn't it, Broadman Baptist? As a person of faith myself, I can't imagine how my religion could ever lead me to want to discriminate against or deny rights to anyone, much less to a happily married, loving couple.

Man up, Cuyahoga Falls. It's time to fix this problem, heal from this embarrassing black eye upon our city's reputation, & move along to the next issue - like, say, drugs, crime, & poverty, all of which are happening right here in our fair city & which truly deserve our local government's attention.

Hey Kate. As requested by the Parks and Rec Board before allowing public input, Mike was asked to direct his comments at the board. He included his address above in the video. I decided on using the word "those" because he also briefly referenced that the community at-large can display intolerance and bigotry, just as civic leaders can, he said. Best.

No one wishes to discriminate against anyone. We wish for the definition of marriage to not be changed. This isn't about rates at the Natatorium. It is about the social agenda of same-sex marriage being forced on the city. To say that standing on a Biblical principal is hatred or bigotry is to say that God is a bigot or hater and we all know that not to be true. He loves Shane and Cody as much as anyone else. There is no graduation of sin, in the eyes of God we are sinners. I don't hide behind anything nor am I afraid of anything except that I would have to stand before Jesus someday and answer for not having spoken the truth in love. Marriage is an institution of God, it is the only way we even know to get married. To stand for that is not hate. And it is not to judge someone else. I, nor anyone else at the meeting(s), has judged anyone or said they have to live a certain way. And I don't feel like they do. I do know that there are many Scriptures decrying homosexuality but there are others decrying other things as well. Take your pick. What is not in doubt is God's definition of marriage. If people commenting here really are people of faith you should be able to see that we would be hating if we didn't speak. And we would be dishonoring God if we didn't speak. Speaking isn't hating, and not giving someone a rate because they aren't married by God's definition isn't discriminating. I don't wish harm or hate on anyone. But I cannot idoly standby and watch marriage changed.

BTW - to say that you can separate religion from public policy is not realistic. The Natatorium was just closed for Easter. CF Schools just observed Good Friday and all city services are closed on Christmas day. This isn't just CF, it's in almost any city in the country. Religion is part of public policy in America. Separation of Church and State was intended to ensure religion could be part of everything; not excluded from everything. It was just so the government couldn't institute a single religion like they had in England.

Oh geez...the religious wingnuts never give up, do they? I knew this discussion would degenerate into a one-sided lecture about what Jesus said, what God said, what the Bible said, etc...irrelevant to this topic. We are talking membership rate structures, not the "sanctity of marriage" as setup by God himself. According to you, we sinners will pay for our sins eventually anyway, so please quit pushing your agenda on people that would rather not hear it...I don't think you even realize you're doing it. Watchmen, indeed!

Good evening readers. Thank you for your continued input on this subject. I ask that you please keep your comments constructive and tactful to keep the civil discourse going.

Richard Mangrum, I agree with your statements. I hope others, even those who disagree will at least respect you for expressing them. You articulated a Christian view of marriage and how we are not supposed to separate our religious views from the public square. Well done.

John M. I agree there are a variety of ways to be married. In a church, at Vegas, by the Mayor, a Justice of the peace etc. A historic view, shows that the first institution established in civilization was marriage and family, later would come governments. The Church as it is today would go back 2000 years. But the institution of marriage is connected with faith as given by God, that is the connection of marriage with both Government and the Church, for they both are institutions given by God for the good of all people. I am sharing this only for those who truly are open minded to at least understand a historical view of this. That is why when you ask people of faith or even government to do away with marriage as ordained by God, we stand up. It is not loosely connected with how we think and believe, it is an part of the fabric itself. I hope out of common decency you can at least realize where we are coming from and why it is so important. I realize you may disagree, but at least realize this is a valid position not built on hate but on values and beliefs...just as those who are trying to promote "gay" marriage are doing. The reality is this is a value...that both opposing sides believe strongly in. I hope something I have written will at least bring us closer to understanding and having greater respect for people of faith. Thank you, best to all.

Can someone please answer this- How does a ban on gay marriage make a heterosexual marriage more solid? I keep hearing that you religious nuts want to protect your man/woman marriage, but I don't see how it would be threatened in the first place. Are you really so concerned about your marriage or are you more concerned with cramming your beliefs down society's throat?

McCombs should take his flock somewhere and actually be helpful to society. Put all that gay hating energy into something productive and useful. Imagine if that many people showed up to clean the garbage out of the river.

I support happiness for ALL people. McCombs will SAY he does, but his actions show that he is an intolerant agendas pusher.

Wanda, what you have expressed here is bigotry against what you say are "religious nuts." And you have expressed intolerance for views of others. This is not about bans or discriminitation. This is about upholding a core view of ours. I don't care who uses the Natatorium or what their relationship status is. That's not up to me. What I do care about is those people trying to change the definition of marriage and impose their agenda on me. My position has existed since God married Adam and Eve and is ordained by Him. It has historically existed throughout American and world history. And, it is supported by all 5 of the world's major religions. Other marriages are conceptions of man. I wonder why you aren't upset that some are attempting to impose thier agenda on me or why you don't think my rights aren't as important. And most importantly, why you think you have the right to say someone isn't doing good because their belief system is different than yours? I have some pretty strong feelings about your position but I would never say you should go somewhere else or that you aren't good for our city just because you push a different agenda than mine. I support happiness for all people as well and there isn't anything inconsistent with what I say or do that indicates differently. Making such sweeping character indictments and angry suggestions without even knowing someone is very assumptive on your part. I bet you would like me if you knew me. And you would be surprised at the good

I understand and respect the strong positions on either side of this issue and it appears that in a month we will have a legal decision of the Board that isn't going to change how any of us feel about anything. What might change is that our city and some of us individually have torn away at and impaired something that goes far beyond this argument and each of us. The ability to have civil discourse and basic personal respect. Some may consider my positions intolerant or hateful; so be it. But the comments have elevated much beyond passion for a position and turned to name-calling, character assasination, and broad-strokes labeling of people and groups of people. As tertiary as this issue to my entire world view and as core as Biblical principles are to me, I do not make assumptions about anyone saying differently. That would be hate and bigotry. I will take this opportunity to say that no matter what your belief system, what you have said about my comments, or how you may feel about my stance on this issue; I will try to love you. Not because I agree with you, or because I'm weird, but because at the end of all this we still have to be Americans, neighbors and citizens of CF, and I will still choose to be a Chrisitan. I wish nothing more than for the rest of this debate to be conducted with respect for each other as humans. True, humans with polarizing positions, but ultimately don't we owe this to each other? There are principles beyond ourselves that need protecting by us.

You can blame heterosexuals for screwing up the institution of marriage, NOT homosexuals. They just got here.

The institution of marriage is not screwed up - people are and thus in need of something perfect to make things right. That would be the blood of Jesus. I disagree with your statement that "they just got here". Those relationships go way back even before Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Pharisees asked Jesus," What is the greatest commandment? He said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul; the second greatest is like the first, "Love your Neighbor ". The Bible doesn't state we are to oppose the sanctity of marriage for others; we are supposed to keep it holy for ourselves. We are to heed the words of our Lord and Jesus. We are to examine our own sin. It doesn't say we should publicly take a stand on the sanctity or the definition of marriage, or even another's sin. Nor are we to complain about forced social agendas relating to our faith. We are watch our tongues for all the damage they can do. We are all imperfect. We are to entertain travelers and open our homes i(we may be entertaining angels unaware). It doesnt say charge them a higher rate if they're LGBT. It doesn't say to keep the rates lower for the married. Why not allow the Nat to charge as per household adults? 2 adults living together would be the same rate as a husband and wife. It's a loving solution. Why can't it be "I love my neighbor as myself"? It doesn't seem to be loving not to compromise on this, really, does it? it became a social agenda on both sides instead of heeding fairness and the Golden Rule. That implies ego --not love. Are your beliefs more important than allowing a fair rate for all adults?. Is that really doing onto others as you would have done onto you? Leveraging a fair rate doesn't mean advocacy of LGBT. This issue never had to be polarizing.

Richard, I knew the religions previously mentioned were against homosexuality, but in three of them, they are not to publicly speak against it. Or, of other things they dont agree with. I have studied this,; I know it's off topic to the issue, but I dd want to comment on this.