State Rep. Chuck DeVore is always railing against the unintended impact of allowing gay marriage in California citing polygamist marriage, mother/son or father/daughter marriages (to avoid paying estate taxes), and even marriages of Middle Eastern men with multiple wives. Pure silliness I say that would change if Chuck had any close friends who are gay and out.
The LA Times Tim Rutten has a different take on unintended consequences of opposing gay marriage in California.Ã‚Â Read it here.
Tim writes: The Field poll found that 68% of voters aged 18 to 29 approve of same-sex marriage. The Times/KTLA survey also found that support for same-sex unions increases with education. If Barack Obama is on the presidential ballot in November, younger, well-educated voters are expected to turn out for him in unprecedented numbers, which could be decisive in the marriage amendment vote.
The supporters (of banning gay marriage) listed also include all but one of California’s Republican state senators and more than half of GOP Assembly members. That’s where those unexpected consequences come in. In 1994, California Republicans thought they had a winning issue with Proposition 187, which would have denied all social services — including healthcare and education — to illegal immigrants. Gov. Pete Wilson was one of its leading advocates.
Proposition 187 easily passed, but it ultimately was overturned by a federal court. Since then, only one Republican candidate has won a statewide election for president, governor or U.S. senator in California. That lone GOP exception is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, which may be why he categorically opposes the Marriage Protection Amendment.
And Rutten isn’t alone; Newsweek’s Anna Quindlen weighs in on ther Gay Marriage debate.Ã‚Â
Gay men and lesbians have prospered because they’ve refused to acquiesce to the notion that they should hide their lives from public view. Two by two they’ve adopted children, bought homes, volunteered in their communities and slogged through life together just the way hetero couples do, except without preferential tax codes, inheritance rights and the automatic assumption that they can make decisions for one another in emergency situations. Too often, without legal protection, they have found themselves dependent on the kindness of those who were not kind, like the man in Indiana who became severely disabled and whose parents prohibited his partner of 25 years from visiting him in their home.
Someday soon the fracas surrounding all this will seem like a historical artifact, like the notion that women were once prohibited from voting and a black individual from marrying a white one. Our children will attend the marriages of their friends, will chatter about whether they will last, will whisper to one another, “Love him, don’t like him so much.” The California Supreme Court called gay marriage a “basic civil right.” In hindsight, it will merely be called ordinary life.
Now with the June primary election behind us and the Democratic nomination process done, we need to mobilize to protect the rights for all citizens to marry the person they love most.Ã‚Â Proponents of the amendment banning gay marriage need to be exposed for their bigotry and hypocrisy (as they are often the same conservatives who toss words like “freedon” and “liberty” as they they own the concepts exclusively.”