« Ah-nuld In Anaheim Today | Main | Red County/OC Blog News Roundup -- May 29, 2007 »

May 28, 2007


Dan Chmielewski

Nice speech. Really. But if you truly believe this paragraph from the Declaration:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

...then why not support the right for Gay men and women to marry the person of their choice.

This isn't a pitch for special rights, but the same rights you and I have. I find it interesting that you will rail at the Islamic terrorists as ones denying basic human rights when you continue to support a denial of basic human rights to gays and lesbians in our own country.

Chuck DeVore

Because, Dan, only one man should marry one woman. There is no natural right for one man to marry four women, or one woman to marry her son, or two brothers to marry each other. There is a huge difference between actively persecuting homosexuals, including death by stoning, as al-Qaeda would justify under their form of Islam, and redefining the institution of marriage as you seek to do.

Ask yourself, what is the purpose of marriage? The answer will dictate whether or not you believe that marriage should be open to any number of relationships for any reason or whether marriage should retain its traditional definition. After all, once you open the definition, why not go all the way?

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

Dan Chmielewski

The definition of marriage has been refined before. There was a time when interacial marriage was illegal. Perez vs Sharp, California Supreme Court, 1948, overturned this prohibition.

The purpose of marriage is to make an emotional and legal committment to the person you love Chuck. If you think its to have children and raise a family, then let's start banning those nursing home marriages of the elderly.

The Declaration states all men are equal with the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see a big "Except if you're gay and want to marry your sweetheart."

stan Frymann

Mr. DeVore,
I read in the LA Times that "LA county issues about 75,000 marriage licenses anualy. In fiscal 2006-07, there were 108,554 filings countywide for dissolution, annulments and legal separations." The idea that that's somehow because of gays, and that excluding gays from marriage somehow "protects" the institution of marriage is absurd. If you really want to "protect" marriage, require pre-marital counseling before the issuance of a marriage license, and do away with "no fault" divorce.

Mr. DeVore, you say "there is no natural right for one man to marry four women. People used to do that all the time back in biblical times, and there was no religious objection. A Saudi man can come here with his four wives and it's recognized. The Saudi man certainly thinks he has a natural right to marry four women.
The state defines what the state recognizes. Each religion can then decide what it will recognize. Unitarians can recognize gay marriage, and catholics not. But the state is in the business of maximizing freedom. Granted, it's the French, but the Declaration of the Rights of Man states that liberty is the right to do that which harms no one else. Show me the "harm" in letting gay people marry each other? It offends you? Well, shall we ban everything you do that offends me? You can't possibly believe that letting gays marry will somehow damage your marriage can you? Surely it's more solid than that.

Chuck DeVore

stan, re: "If you really want to "protect" marriage, require pre-marital counseling before the issuance of a marriage license, and do away with "no fault" divorce."

I tried both in 2005 and was blocked in the Judiciary Committee by majority Democrats.

As for the rest of your post, I am not offended by alternative arragements, rather, I find them far less than optimal for the raising of children to be successful adults. Statistics would tend to bear out my thoughts -- i.e., nothing beats a home with one mother and one father. My main argument with same-sex marriage is that once that restriction is breached, then anything goes, including polygamy and incestuous marriage since both, by your definition, "harm" no one.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District

The comments to this entry are closed.