State Assembly Approves Same-Sex Marriage for second year
Posted by: Chuck DeVore | 06/05/2007 6:37 PM
At about 5:20 PM today we began an hour and 10 minutes of debate on AB 43 by Assemblyman Mark Leno, the Gender-Neutral Marriage bill. The bill went onto the floor with 43 co-authors.
Some 16 Democrats raised their mics to speak to the bill, including Speaker Nunez who commented that this year's debate was civil. I was the first Republican speaker against the bill and was followed by Doug LaMalfa, Anthony Adams, Joel Anderson, Sharon Runner, Ted Gaines, and Bill Maze with Republican Leader Mike Villines being the last Republican to speak.
My arguments went along these lines:
1) That the 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 (implied that there are exceptions for not marrying close relatives as well as permission needed for marriages with someone under 18).
2) The author of the measure (Leno) compared the interracial marriage bans of the past to same-sex marriage. This is a false comparison as any one adult should be able to marry any one other adult of the opposite sex.
3) That, in spite of the fact that traditional marriage is under pressure from modern society, 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. Redefining marriage does not serve to strengthen marriage.
4) That domestic partner benefits and powers of attorney provide numerous rights for same-sex couples today, rendering unneeded a redefinition of marriage.
5) I remarked that a portrait of Abraham Lincoln graces our chambers and that the founding platform of the Republican Party in 1855 professed an “Opposition to those twin pillars of barbarism, slavery and polygamy.” This is relevant because the federal Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment has applied the protections of the First Amendment to the states meaning that, if we redefine marriage, we may well be forced to recognize the marriage of a foreign national to his four wives as a religious right.
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.
Last year, the same bill, AB 849, passed 41 to 35, the minumum vote needed for passage, with four Democrats voting “no” with all but one Republican who abstained. Last year’s bill passed in the Senate with the minimum vote needed: 21 to 15. It was vetoed by the Governor.
The Senate is a bit more conservative this year than it was last year, so AB 43 may have trouble getting to the needed 21 vote majority.
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
“Opposition to those twin pillars of barbarism, slavery and polygamy.”
And yet two staples of OT Hebrew social organization. Better watch it Chuck - you're gonna get Jehovah sore.
Who cares? Divorce is a much bigger threat to marriage than gay marriage is. In fact, evangelicals have one of the highest divorce rates in the country. What do you make of that Chuck?
There is no minimum age of consent. An 8 year old can marry in California with a parent's blessing.
Parents marrying children to save a few bucks on death taxes. Ick.
Sorry, equal protection clause applies here; just eliminate the words "opposite sex" and read up on the 1948 case that overturned bans on inter-racial marriages. You're wrong on this one Chuck.
Where can I find the vote count on AB 43?
Just finished voting for the night -- we worked on a little more than 150 bills.
Vote count for AB 43? All Republicans and Democrats Carter and Parra voted "no." Three Democrats abstained at last count: Arambula, Davis, and Galgiani. Soto was absent.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com
Chuck DeVore
"denizens of the planet"?
I figured someone might pick up on that. As I recall, my actual words were: "...humans are alone among the animals of the planet..."
Chuck
So the new, hip with the liberal scene, not a Republican any more, Art Pedroza is in favor of Homosexual marriage? I remember when Art was against the arts movement in Santa Ana because he said it would bring too many homosexuals into the city! Anything else you want to tell us Art???
Thanks Chuck for doing what is right, even when it's not popular! May God bless you for your vote and protect you while you serve.
And is the evangelical divorce rate unlike the Catholic divorce rate Art? When are you going to put some real social conservatives on you blog? Seems like the whole group over there keeps sliding more and more to the left.
"When are you going to put some real social conservatives on you blog? Seems like the whole group over there keeps sliding more and more to the left."
Like the rest of the country.
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.
I really don't see why ANYONE who considers himself a conservative sees a role for government in regulating marriage and interpersonal relationships. This ban on gay marriage is the "nanny state" at its worst.
Since no one else wants to step on the third rail...... The main issue (mostly unspoken) regarding gay marriage is the nature of homosexuality--is it genetic or is it a choice? The scientific community leans toward the genetic explanation. This has yet to be proven; it remains scientific theory rather than scientific fact. Most arguments for gay marriage are based on the assumption that same-gender preference is genetic. What if further study shows homosexuality not to be genetically based? Extending protected status to a group based on behavior would open up a legal Pandora's box of enormous proportions.
You know the funniest thing is how you relgious types throw around the word theory like it means a random shot in the dark guess. My favorite is..."evolution is a theory, not a fact!".
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and a theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the general theory of relativity.
So science has testable evidence and is willing to be wrong, but you have wild fantasies of some true god (whatever that means) and can never be wrong. "But the bible says it is wrong"
Just show me the same kind of evidence that it is a choice that scientists have that it is genetic and then you may have a theory of choice and we can have a conversation. until then go read your bible including all of the verses that you don't like and the next time you see anyone working on the Sabbath, be sure to stone him/her to death as it also says that in the bible.
Martin: you missed the point. The choice/genetics argument was not about religion--it was about the law. Expanding protections to include behavior would be opening a completely new legal frontier, with ramifications far beyond gay marriage.
9:45,
I grew up, learned from my mistakes, and changed my views. You clearly haven't.
There is no reason to stay tapado...