Assembly Approves Gay Marriage Measure for Second Year; And Rep. Chuck DeVore Thinks Its Wrong

HT to Andrew Davey at Calitics for the news that the State Assembly has passed a Gay Marriage bill for the second year in a row.  Should it pass the state senate, it almost clearly awaits a veto from the Governor which is a shame given his previous statements on the matter.

State Rep. Chuck DeVore believes that expanding the definition of marriage to allow Gays and Lesbians to marry would open to door to mothers marrying sons and fathers marrying daughters and brothers marrying brothers all in the name of “avoiding intergenerational wealth transfer taxes (death taxes).” 

 

Sure. 

I love my son, but I sure as hell won’t marry him so he can save a few dollars when I croak.  Perhaps I have underestimated the Incest Marriage lobby.

Chuck had a lenghtly post about this on OCBlog.

My favorite passage:

Had I additional time to speak, I would have mentioned that this bill would lead to fathers marrying sons and daughters marrying mothers to avoid inter-generational wealth transfer taxes (death taxes).  I would have also warned against the slippery slope of lowering the age of consent because, obviously, nothing is fixed anymore and everything is now up for redefinition. 

Other Republican speakers emphasized the people’s passage of Prop. 22 as well as religious and moral objections to same-sex marriage. Democrats emphasized love, equality, and civil rights.  Mr. Leno closed, answering most Republican points — but he declined to address the core arguments I made.  I should like to think that that was because he knew my arguments were strong.The final vote was 42 to 34.

How about he declined to address your core arguments because they are idiotic and homophobic? Mothers marrying sons.  C’mon. Sounds like someone has a Oedipus complex. And to that end, I dedicate the following song to Rep. DeVore.  A country classic, “I’m My Own Grandpa”

Many, many years ago when I was just twenty-three,
I was married to a widow, she was pretty as could be.
This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red
And my father fell in Love with her. Soon they too were wed.
This made my dad my son-in-law–changed my very life!
My daughter was my mother because she was my father’s wife!
To complicate the matter even though it brought me joy,
I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.
My little baby he then became a brother-in-law to Dad.
Well, that made him my uncle–made me very sad!
Because if he was my uncle then he also was a brother
To the widow’s grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my stepmother.

CHORUS:

My father’s wife then had a son who kept them on the run.
And, of course, he became my grandchild because he was my daughter’s son.
My wife is now my mother’s mother and this makes me blue.
Because although she is my wife, she’s my grandmother too!

CHORUS:

Now if my wife is my grandmother, well, then I am her grandchild,
And every time that I think about this, it nearly drives me wild!
Because now I have become the strangest case that you ever saw.
As husband of my grandmother, I’m  my own grandpa

CHORUS: 

I’m my own grandpa! I’m my own grandpa!
It sounds funny, I know, but it really is so!
Oh, I’m my own grandpa!  

  18 comments for “Assembly Approves Gay Marriage Measure for Second Year; And Rep. Chuck DeVore Thinks Its Wrong

  1. June 5, 2007 at 9:55 pm

    Arnold ain’t gonna live forever, who knows, he could croak before the bill gets to his desk, keep your fingers crossed – I do – and it got Falwell…

    Ever heard of Visualization…

    Our local District Attorney idiot that he is, was going to prosecute a woman for practicing Voodoo not too long ago – so maybe there’s something to it…

    My name is Dave Harvey and my Anti-spam word was Clinton.

    Anybody got a Voodoo doll of Arnold – maybe a Gay one…

  2. June 6, 2007 at 7:10 am

    I am compelled to respond to some of Assemblyman DeVore’s more idiotic and absurd arguments against AB43.

    “We should in no way redefine marriage because humans are alone among the denizens of the planet in the enormous amount of resources and love it takes to raise children.”

    Um, what does marriage have to do with raising children? As far as I know, marriage is not restricted to two opposite gender adults who are able and willing to raise children.

    “Traditional definition of marriage in California is not violative of the equal protection provisions in the state constitution as any one adult can marry any one other adult of the opposite sex.”

    Chuck, please read your history. The traditional definition of marriage in California for 127 years?California marriage law was gender-neutral, containing no reference to “man” or “woman.” The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act simply would restore the pre-1977 language to the Family Code in order to provide equal marriage rights to same-gender couples? Unless, by traditional, you mean a religious definition. Which of course would violate the separation of Church and State prohibiting the establishment of a state religion. I am a Christian, and my church endorses same gender marriage. Are you suggesting that your particular branch of Christianity should have more weight in law than mine?

    “That domestic partner benefits and powers of attorney provide numerous rights for same-sex couples today, rendering unneeded a redefinition of marriage.”

    Chuck, would these be the same Domestic Benefits that the Republicans in the Senate and Assembly unanimously oppose.

    Finally Chuck, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act was first passed by the California legislature in 2005. That was last session, not last year.

  3. Julie
    June 6, 2007 at 8:25 am

    Great song dedication….”to that end, I dedicate the following song to Rep. DeVore. A country classic, “I’m My Own Grandpa.”

    Thanks for the morning chuckle.

    Here’s The Muppets rendition:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0s5Kn9QXtU

  4. June 6, 2007 at 9:20 am

    Chuck DeVore is an idiot. There was once a show on the History Channel that was about the fight to end bans on inter-racial marriage.

    California was one of the first state’s to overturn their anti-miscegenation law in 1948. They showed a reaction from a politician who was whining that allowing “Negroes and Whites to marry would lead to brothers marrying mothers, men to marry men and women to marry their dogs.”

    Sounds like if Chuck DeVore lived back then, he would have sided with the hood wearing KKK in trying to keep Blacks and Asians from marrying Whites in California.

    By the way Chris, you need to give props to Jose Solorio. Many people gave him a hard time, falsely claiming he would be against this, he took a political risk by doing this. The Republicans are going to turn this into a wedge issue with him. Yet he sided for Civil Rights. You need to thank him for that. Thanks Jose!

  5. June 6, 2007 at 9:55 am

    By the way, I wonder if Chuck DeVore has ever had the huevos to go up to Mark Leno or any other openly gay and lesbian members of the State Legislature and tell them to their face that he believes their right to marry is equivilent to incest.

    C’mon Chuck, have some real balls and say it to their face, right in their face. Be a man.

  6. Dan Chmielewski
    June 6, 2007 at 10:27 am

    I would like someone to explain to me how allowing two men or two women to marry weakens my marriage (24 years this September)? Meanwhile, the greatest threat to marriage and the most harmful thing to young children is divorce.

    Should we make it tougher to get a divorce? Rush Limbaugh has been married 4 times. Newt Gingrich, three times. Rudy Giuliani, three times. Fred Thompson, twice. McCain twice.

    I have to believe Chuck knows very little about gay men and women. Republicans leaders argued for the Prop 22, religious and moral grounds for denying gay marriage. Don’t we have a separation of church & state? And last time I checked, you cannot legislate morality.

    Should we start sending Chuck copies of “Brokeback Mountain” or “The Wedding Banquet” or “The Bird Cage”? Would it even help?

  7. Anonymous
    June 6, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    To all:

    Your ability to follow an argument is sorely lacking. Your pettiness belittles you. Ad hominems do not in any way bolster your positions.

    Chuck DeVore
    State Assemblyman, 70th District

  8. Dan Chmielewski
    June 6, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    Chuck —
    We’re effing with you.

    You are arguing that if the definition of marriage is expanded, mothers will marry sons and brothers will marry brothers. Yet, there’s very little evidence of this out there.

    I just see no moral or legal reason why gay marriage ins’t allowed.

    We argue on this issue on facts that you routinely discuss because you believe gay marriage is morally wrong. There is no bend in your positions on this. I have to conclude you don’t personally know many gay people very well. I believe if you did, you would have a different perspective.

  9. June 6, 2007 at 1:43 pm

    Chuck,

    I think my arguments were pretty good. Obviously too good for you to address.

    As with a dialogue regarding religious zealotry, your unwilling to debate your position with peoiple who can actually counter your positions with logical and well thought out responses.

    Anytime you actually want to debate this topic, we’re ready to rumble.

  10. June 6, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    Ohhh Snap!

    I see the debate of the year coming!

    Chris “Mad Blogger” Prevatt vs. Chuck “I love effing with people” DeVore!

    Of course I don’t think Mr. DeVore is interested in a spirited factual debate, did anyone read his blog post?

  11. June 6, 2007 at 3:50 pm

    Someone get me the “Mad Hatter” costume and I’ll pose for the picture. But how do we get Chuck to pose in a leather harness and chaps? :wink:

  12. June 6, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    Chris,

    Find in the record where I have ever used a moral argument against same-sex marriage. You won’t. You also won’t find a Prop. 22 argument, because I have never used it.

    My argument is that redefining marriage invites a court challenge based on the 14th and 1st Amendments that could blow the doors off of traditional marriage leading to polygamy and intergenerational marriages within family as well as a lowering of the age limit (in California, if a minor female can get an abortion on her own, why not marry too, the reasoning of the court may go). Our court system is quite adept at pushing the boundaries once those boundaries prove malleable. Are you willing to allow one man married to four women in the name of religious equality under the 1st Amendment as applied via the 14th Amendment? There are other examples as well, once you start to change the rules.

    Further, that the basic family unit is the underpinning of our society. We provide government recognition and some benefits to that unit in recognition of the tremendous costs in raising a family. Any wider granting of benefits to non-traditional family arrangements necessitates a diminishing of resources relative to maintaining the family unit. If we do not get the family unit right, then society begins to collapse (exhibit 1: Europe, especially Russia, where demographics dictate that some nations will cease to exist as we know them within the next 100 years).

    All the best,

    Chuck DeVore
    State Assemblyman, 70th District

  13. Dan Chmielewski
    June 6, 2007 at 7:59 pm

    Chuck —
    Before I add on to this discussion; how dare you post a defense of your position on gay marriage in the middle of the third period of the Stanley Cup Finals, Game 5, won by our Anaheim Ducks? Its enough to kick you out of the he-man hockey fan club….

    I can’t find the exact comment on OC Blog, but in one of our many chats on this issue you wrote words to the effect of “some things (gay marriage) are just wrong.” I know that’s not in the assembly record, but I think we can agree you think gay marriage is wrong on a number of fronts.

    As far as the basic family structure, well every family is different with its own set of values and priorities. I can’t say one is better than the other, but would like to think that a house filled with love is a happy one. Ozzie and Harriett are long gone Chuck. I wonder how many gay couples you know with children. The kids are alright Chuck. They need loving parents whether its a mom and dad, two dads, two moms, or aunts and uncles who serve as guardians.

    In California, there is no minimum age for marriage. A parent could give consent for a 5 year old to wed. Perhaps you ought to introduce a bill establishing an age of consent in California.

    “My argument is that redefining marriage invites a court challenge based on the 14th and 1st Amendments that could blow the doors off of traditional marriage leading to polygamy and intergenerational marriages within family as well as a lowering of the age limit …”

    and yet none of this has happened in Massachusetts which permits gay marriage. No church will marry mothers and sons. Ain’t gonna happen. And marrying a blood relative to save money on taxes i just creepy. PLease tell me this is some powerful lobby no one has ever heard from.

    You are using a classic Republican device of using fear of what could happen to prevent what should happen. And what should happen is the extension of the same rights you and I have to choose who we marry.
    I have gay and lesbian friends I’d like to see enjoy the same rights I have.

  14. Chuck DeVore
    June 6, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    Dan,

    Re: “…and yet none of this has happened in Massachusetts which permits gay marriage.” — give it time. It takes a while for the courts to act.

    As to the Stanley Cup, I was posting during a dinner recess from voting tonight. We are back at it now. I announced the Ducks’ victory on the floor of the Assembly. Does that partially restore my membership in the “he-man hockey fan club”?

    All the best,

    Chuck DeVore
    State Assemblyman, 70th District

  15. Dan Chmielewski
    June 6, 2007 at 8:38 pm

    on the courts, whatever you say…law has been in place for, what 3 years now…there should be an inkling of a case you predict, but I don’t think so.

    Announcing the Duck win is th ebest thing you did on the floor tonight. Thank you.

    You are forgiven for missing the finals (but you do know they make these teeny tiny TVs now would would have let you watch the game). You missed a great game; buy it off iTunes later.

  16. June 6, 2007 at 8:53 pm

    Chuck,

    What defines for you the term traditional marriage? Why should that term include only persons of opposite gender? What compelling, non-moral rationale justifies such a distinction? Aren’t persons, regardless of gender, entitled to equal protection of our laws?

    For that matter, what determines a tradition? Is it the tradition that existed for 127 years, or do we go with the tradition in place for the most recent 40 years?

    Why should children who have parents who are of the same gender not enjoy the benefits of the same basic family unit that is the underpinning of our society as children of opposit gender parents? Your position pretends to strenghten the underpinnings of our society when in fact it weakens them.

    You have claimed that domestic partnership benefits are enough. I guess when 100% of the rights, responsibilities, and benefits granted by marriage are conveyed through that mechanism, you could in theory have a point. However, if that were to occur, then why should we have an apparent separate but equal classification, why not just call it the same thing. Other states have established civil unions, should I presume that you will be introducing legislation to establish such a process in California?

    Your arguments of the 1st and 14th amendments don’t really hold much water. But let me run with the religious test for a moment.

    If the state were to allow two individuals to join together in a civil union, whatever it is called it should be that same for everyone under state law, then where does the religious freedom equation come into play?

    No slippery slope to polygamy here that I can see. I suppose there are some legitimate justifications to prevent biologically related individuals from marrying. I believe they have existed in law since the beginning of the state.

  17. June 6, 2007 at 10:18 pm

    Isn’t divorce a legitimate threat to marriage? How many times have Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich dumped their wives? Is Fred Thompson’s current wife, who is 25 years younger than he is, his first wife?

    The Reeps need to get off their high horse. They embrace divorce like drunken sailers reaching for rum. Then they complain when people who love each other want to get married?

    Wake up Chuck! We’re past the Middle Ages…

  18. Carl Weibel
    June 6, 2007 at 10:57 pm

    If the far right was really interested in “protecting marriage”, why haven’t they done anything about things like people marrying for money? I think we all know the real reason they oppose letting gays and lesbians marry, and it has nothing to do with protecting marriage. It’s time for voters and politicians to grow up and start treating all Americans fairly and equally!

Comments are closed.