Gay Marriage PSAs

State Rep. Chuck DeVore posted the scorecards for OC’s state legislature delegration and of course, the Republicans scored terribly low in issues that matter to the environment and on issue of gay “rights.”

If the quotes over the word “rights” just stopped you cold, its exactly the way Chuck wrote them.  We’ve debated this before on OCBlog, but Chuck believes marriage is between a man and a woman for purposes of having children and raising families (then we should outlaw new marriages for anyone past child-rearing years right?).

I believe that the 9th amendment of the Constitution gives to the people all the rights not defined in the Constitution and that the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause, coupled with laws that made bans on interracial marriages unconstitutional, will eventually lead to gay marriage as the law of the land.

Before my conservative friends start telling me how gay marriage will destroy families (seriously, how?), please check out these public service announcements produced by Max Vitali.  And please visit this site to find out more about truly providing freedom and liberty to all members of our great nation. 

  6 comments for “Gay Marriage PSAs

  1. March 2, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    Right. So marriage between a man and a woman who have no intention of having children should also be banned.

    Because, you know, every single “family” that has a father and mother guarantees happy, successful, and well-adjusted members.


  2. March 2, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    Great post Dan. Marriage equality is the defininng social movement of our generation. Young people (18-35) are in overwhelming support of marriage equality, whereas people older 35 tend to not support it.

    We in the liberal movements, and especially the Young Democrats, need to be vocal and unafraid to support this right.

    Hope Chuck knows that is just a matter of time…


  3. Lee Lemke
    March 3, 2007 at 12:06 am

    “then we should outlaw new marriages for anyone past child-rearing years right?).

    As usual Dan in order to make your point you have resorted to extremely narrowly focusing the example so as to make it look ridiculous.

    Do you have some personal vested interest in being so sympathetic to queers?

  4. Publius
    March 3, 2007 at 9:53 am

    Perhaps Dan’s “personal vested interest” (and Tim’s) is simply that he believes it’s the right thing to do.

    I think Dan’s example of potentially banning marriages between elderly heterosexuals is not nearly as extreme as Chuck DeVore’s argument (over on OCBlog) that allowing consenting same-gender couples to marry would lead to polygamy, father-daughter couples, etc.

  5. March 3, 2007 at 12:07 pm

    Chuck DeVore is the very definition of a pin-head right-wing nut job.

    He has expressed his belief that any religious faith other than his is bad. He promotes a Christian theocracy like the Taliban for our county. he claims that our government is trying to force a social agenda, while he trys t force his own at the same time.

    Lee, do you really want to be a part of the DeVore Taliban?

  6. Dan Chmielewski
    March 3, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    Lee — my examples are far more mainstream than the examples of father-daughter marriages or polygamous marriages laid out by Chuck DeVore over at OC Blog.

    I support it because its the right thing to do. I have friends who are gay, but to describe then in this manner diminishes their value to me as friends. I have friends who are women, men, young, old, black, white, Asian, hispanic etc…it’s simply easier to call them “friends” as no other label is necessary.

    But thank you for the use of the term “queers,” as its a signed confession that you’re a small-minded bigot. Are other racial or ethnic slurs part of your volcabulary as well?

Comments are closed.