Marriage Equality in CA – The first four days

Ruben Carrillo & David SoulelesAs far as I can tell, and since I am able to write this post I am pretty sure I am correct, the world has not come to an end because same gender marriages are now legally recognized in the State of California.

I am also pretty sure that the institution of marriage has not collapsed resulting in an increased rate of divorce; decline in opposite gender marriages, bestiality, or polygamy. It has however resulted in an increase in couples seeking recognition by California of their committed relationships.

In Orange County that translates into the following statistics:

                                          6/17                6/18                6/19                 6/20

Licenses total:               121                 112                 130                  175

Ceremonies total:           70                   38                   50                     95

According to the County Clerk/Recorder’s office spokesperson Jean Pasco; “On an average day, we issue 30 licenses. About half of the licenses today (Friday) were same sex couples. June is a very busy month for licenses overall.”

I do have a question for our favorite blogging Republican Assemblyman Chuck DeVore. Has the institution of same-gender marriage equality destroyed your marriage yet?

The Los Angeles Times reported today:

Since 5:01 p.m. on Monday — when the ban on same-sex marriage in California lifted — more than 6,300 couples have been issued marriage licenses in the state, well over twice the average for a full week. The count includes licenses issued to both gay and heterosexual couples. To view an interactive map showing how many licenses each county issued day-by-day visit latimes.com/marriagemap.

In addition, the LATimes reported in the same story that:

Supporters of gay rights have asked the California Supreme Court to block a November ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriages.In a legal brief filed late Friday with the high court, the gay rights groups argue that the initiative is a “revision” of the state Constitution, which would require involvement of the Legislature, rather than simply an amendment, which can be approved by a majority vote in an election.

A recent Associated Press poll shows growing support for same-gender marriage.

“The results mark the first time in over three decades of polling by the Field Poll that more California voters have approved of extending marriage to gay couples than have disapproved,” said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo. The survey of 1,052 registered voters was conducted over the phone.

“I would say this is a historic turning point or milestone,” DiCamillo said. “We have speculated in the past there would be some time in the future when a majority would support same-sex marriage. Well, the lines have crossed.”

“The poll found that 51 percent of respondents backed legalizing same-sex marriage and 42 percent opposed it,” DiCamillo said. 

  29 comments for “Marriage Equality in CA – The first four days

  1. intergalacticman
    June 22, 2008 at 5:14 pm

    I must say that the decay of our civilization is not one that is sudden, although rapid. Although homosexuality may be popular, I do not think it is right. Not even wild dogs have homosexual sex. Although I am not hostile to gay people, I tend to distance myself from them unlike crazy right wing activists who are inappropriately confrontational. The main reason why homosexuals are “accepted” can be attributed to gay people have appeared constantly in the media, from songs to tv shows to movies, since the 80′s untill nowadays. This saturation of homosexual ideals has led the public to feel that homosexuality is just another way of life. I am disappointed that homosexual people can marry since it has cheapened the significance of marriage I can only hope that more intelligent heads prevail elsewhere.

  2. Dan Chmielewski
    June 22, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    Chris — haven’t you seen the advanced degrees Chuck has? And all his Pentagon experience? And White House appointments? Of course he’s a better judge about who can marry than you or I. My goodness, now that Gays and Lesbians can wed, my marriage is hanging by a thread and my traditional family is about to be destroyed.

    Just wonder if Chuck and his family love pork and shellfish too. Leviticus had a few thigs to say about that in the Old Testament too

  3. June 22, 2008 at 6:36 pm

    IG Man: you know what cheapens marriage? Spousal abuse. Sham marriages like that of Britney Spears. Neglect.

    When married gays begin to do those things (and they will, since gays are no different from anyone else), then they too will be contributing to the degradation of marriage. Just like many heterosexuals do today.

  4. June 22, 2008 at 7:02 pm

    I hate the concept of marriage, but I love the equality. In a few months, when the sky hasn’t fallen and the state hasn’t been destroyed by hellfire like Babylon, people will realize that gay marriage really does strengthen all families by insuring that arbitrary hate is not a ‘value’ that continues to be passed down from one generation to the next.

    SMS

  5. KC
    June 22, 2008 at 7:27 pm

    intergalacticman,

    I agree with you. Homosexuality has become fashion for some.

  6. June 22, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Not even wild dogs have homosexual sex.

    Intergalactic Man, that is a point I hadn’t considered!

    And I’ve just spent my Sunday playing piano at a church, blogging on the internet, driving a car, drinking iced coffee, and eating Thai food with chopsticks, and watching a movie – ALL things wild dogs don’t do!

    My God, what have I done?!?

  7. June 22, 2008 at 10:34 pm

    @intergalactic: You can find your homosexual wild dogs here, along with bison, sheep and a hell of a lot more gaiety.

  8. R. Scott Moxley
    June 23, 2008 at 8:31 am

    I must say that the decay of our civilization is not one that is sudden, although rapid. Although Republicanism may be popular in Texas, I do not think it is right. Not even wild dogs have Republican sex. Although I am not hostile to Republican people, I tend to distance myself from them unlike crazy left wing activists who are inappropriately confrontational. The main reason why Republicans are “accepted” can be attributed to Republican people who have appeared constantly in the media, from songs to tv shows to movies, and in ethics scandal after scandal since the 80’s. This saturation of Republican ideals has led the public to feel that Republicanism is just another way of life. I am disappointed that Republican people can marry since it has cheapened the significance of marriage. I can only hope that more intelligent heads prevail elsewhere.

  9. Dan Chmielewski
    June 23, 2008 at 9:29 am

    still laughing over this one Scott; well said

  10. intergalacticman
    June 23, 2008 at 9:44 am

    Not even wild dogs have opposable thumbs!! And btw the only republican thing about me is that I oppose gay marriage and Larry Agran.

  11. Homewrecker
    June 23, 2008 at 10:18 am

    Those who become squeamish at the thought of gay sex should be rejoicing at the notion of sexless gay marriages that so many straight couple have enjoyed all these years.

  12. June 24, 2008 at 11:47 am

    Chris, you wrote, “I do have a question for our favorite blogging Republican Assemblyman Chuck DeVore. Has the institution of same-gender marriage equality destroyed your marriage yet?”

    Allow me to ask a similar question: how do the “plural marriages” of the Fundamentalist LDS cult in Texas hurt my marriage? If you answer that polygamous marriage harms no one and that you can see no rationale to oppose it, then, I suppose that we have no further ground for discussion.

    Using a new analogy, you might ask: how does a counterfeit $100 bill harm anyone, after all, a real $100 bill in your pocket still holds its value. Yet, we try to prevent counterfeiting as counterfeiting debases the value of the true $100 bill.

    In this vein, I see same-sex marriage as a counterfeit. Marriage is between one eligible (eligible as in of age and not closely related to) man and one eligible woman. Anything else operates to devalue marriage. Anything else opens the door to a definition of marriage that is less than ideal for family and children – children who benefit by having a mother and a father.

    Lastly, it is sadly true that traditional marriages ending in divorce is all too common and is harmful to children. But, we can acknowledge this all tragic shortcoming in modern society without then calling for an overturning of the traditional definition of marriage. One does not necessarily call for the other.

    All the best,

    Chuck DeVore
    California State Assemblyman, 70th District
    http://www.ChuckDeVore.com

  13. June 24, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Mr. DeVore -

    Why must you take it upon yourself to decide what’s best for families and children? What authority do you cite in you assertion? If you say ‘a higher authority,’ most people will say ‘wrong answer.’

    This is not, I repeat not a Christian nation. We all have freedom of religion and freedom from religion and the tyranny of theocracy as laid out in the establishment clause.

    Trying to make this a social issue is like putting lipstick on a pig. Religious traditions should never dictate social policy. Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay couples are normally either just as happy and healthy, or even more happy and healthy, than their counterparts with heterosexual parents.

    To put it ironically: ‘to Hades with the Theocrats.’

    SMS

  14. Dan Chmielewski
    June 24, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    Answer Chris’ question Chuck instead of reframing the question to something you’d prefer to answer. Has YOUR marriage been harmed by allowing Gays and Lesbians to marry?

  15. June 24, 2008 at 2:03 pm

    I’m surprised DeVore hasn’t quoted or paraphrased Rick Santorum to tell us that gay marriage is tantamount to marrying goats or trees.

  16. June 24, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    You liberals who are mocking Chuck should remember this seminal passage from the visionary Fafblog way back in 2004, frequently misunderstood as satire:

    …each time a man and a woman are married, they are touched on a higher plane of reality by one of the tentacles of God’s immense Octopus of Marriage, housed in Heaven, whose countless tentacles stretch out to embrace everyone else joined in the divine institute of Marriage. However, if gays begin to be married in America, the Octopus of Marriage will stretch down – unwittingly! – and touch its tentacle to their marriage as well… and in doing so, will be tainted by Gay.

    From there, this disaster leads to apocalyptic proportions, for once the Octopus of Marriage is itself corrupted with Gay, the corruption will spread through every marriage in America – tainting every happily married straight couple from Joe and Hadassah Lieberman to Newt and Marianne Gingrich with Gay. The epidemic of Gay would inevitably lead to the extinction of the human race, as well as the fatal corruption and death of the Octopus of Marriage, which in turn would cause a lethal wave of Gay to spread through the Celestial Empyrean itself.

    God bless Assemblyman DeVore for being one of the few Calfornia politicians to speak up in defense of the Octopus of Marriage!

  17. Homewrecker
    June 24, 2008 at 5:50 pm

    Why did Assemblyman DeVore even bother? I live in Irvine, and I am ashamed to admit I voted for him, thinking he would be good for my city. He obviously isn’t capable of forming a rational argument. With critical thinking skills like that, if he wasn’t in a safe Assembly district would he even be electable?

    P.S. Chuck, people don’t find it amusing when their relationship is compared to U.S. monetary policy.

  18. Gary Kephart
    June 24, 2008 at 5:52 pm

    Chuck,

    My wife and I married with the understanding that we would not produce any offspring. Does same-sex marriage harm our marriage? Does our marriage harm “traditional” marriages (those with children) ?

    Gary

  19. Dan Chmielewski
    June 24, 2008 at 6:35 pm

    “Religious traditions should never dictate social policy. ”

    And a Merry Christmas, Happy Valentine’s Day and Happy Halloween to you too Sarah. Your statement is not practical applied so broadly. Religious traditions are important to our society at large and everyone choses how to best apply them for their own lives. Churches are packed at Christmas, but probably not last Sunday (when I went)

  20. commonsense
    June 24, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    Devore’s argument makes sense to me.

  21. intergalacticman
    June 24, 2008 at 6:42 pm

    although I think that gay marriage is horrible,. i think that the state is not in a position to outlaw it.

  22. Sweetelle
    June 24, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    PHOBIUS: Hilarious!

  23. Don't shortchange Devore
    June 24, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    Authoritarians know a lot more about perversion than we do.

    Imagine if you will, a gay man married to a lesbian woman, and how hard they have to work to feign normality while they bash gays and fight terrorism and immigrants.

    Or J Edgar Hoover and his lifetime companion as they battled for truth, justice and the American way

    Karl Rove’s dad.

    Mark Foley

    Larry Craig’s toe tapping or that Republican Congressman Vitter with the hookers and the diapers.

    While you can’t trust Republicans with money, you beter pay attention when they tell us about perversion.

  24. June 24, 2008 at 10:29 pm

    Imagine if you will, a gay man married to a lesbian woman, and how hard they have to work to feign normality while they bash gays and fight terrorism and immigrants.

    IF such a marriage, with the help of science, can produce triplets, then who are we to judge?

  25. June 24, 2008 at 11:52 pm

    Dan -

    You know full well what I mean. Declaring a holiday is not what I mean by social policy. However, it’s funny: Christmas is a Christian holiday and the government is closed. Halloween, or Samhain (pronounced ‘sow-en’) as it’s known in Pagan circles (no pun intended), is the Pagan New Year. Guess what? Everyone goes to work on October 31st. Of course Valentine’s Day is merely a Hallmark holiday.

    One religion monopolizing the others is precisely what the Framers intended to avoid by including the Establishment Clause. The domination of the Christian holidays on the government calendar is just one more fact in evidence against the religion’s unfair domination of the definition of morality, as well as more broad-based social policy.

    SMS

  26. Dan Chmielewski
    June 25, 2008 at 9:02 am

    Sarah — That’s not what th Establish Clause does; it merely allows anyone to practice any rerligion they choose; or to practice no religion at all. The establisment clause prevents the government from creating a church, endorsing relgion in general, or favoring one set of religious beliefs over another. You cite government being closed on Christmas, but people have to work on Holy Thursday, Good Friday, All Saint’s Day (of which the night before is All Hallow’s Eve). Thanksgiving is a religious holiday of sorts but with no particular faith in mind. I don;t believe any government can legislate morality.

    But to the issue at hand; the argument is better geared towards equal rights for all than a play on religious morality. Chuck advocates a two-tiered system where one class of individuals – due to their sexual orientation – has fewer rights than everyone else. And he’ll keep throwing out the polygamists and Middle Eastern cultures as evidence that he’s right.

    So all the venom stays over on OJ huh? No STFU over here?

  27. June 30, 2008 at 9:43 pm

    Our nation’s culture has found that same sex marriage is inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.

  28. Homewrecker
    July 1, 2008 at 11:00 am

    “Our nation’s culture has found that same sex marriage is inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.”

    Consider that a culture that has historically promoted discrimination based on fear and stereotyping is in itself dysfunctional, and in no place to judge the private relationship of two consenting adults.

  29. July 1, 2008 at 4:39 pm

    “Our nation’s culture has found…” What a nonsensical, bombastic sentence! HOW did our culture go about finding this, Michael? Did it use scientific methods? Basset hounds? Carrier pigeons? Geiger counters? Did our culture write a peer-reviewed paper I can glance over? On what degree did same-sex marriage fall on the inimicality scale of one to ten? These “mutualy supportive family relationships” were damaged by same-sex marriage in what way exactly: did they become less supportive in general, or less mutually supportive, i.e. either husband or wife became unsupportive (or maybe even a pain in the neck) while the other spouse hung in there stoically? And this “constitutional right to marry” – that’s a nice touch. Let me guess, 31st Amendment?

    Ay, ¡Santo Dios de los Ejércitos! Off to grad school with you, Michael!

Comments are closed.