Assemblyman DeVore's Floor Statement

The following is the statement made by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore during the debate to legalize same sex marriage.

Mister Speaker, Members:

We are told that this issue is about equality, that it is about ending discrimination that it is about actually strengthening marriage.

To the point about discrimination, let me note for you that the law discriminates all the time. Mr. Koretz wants to make it so that only those older than 21 have the right to purchase cigarettes. The military says you must have a high school diploma or at least a GED to serve in uniform.

Only those 16 or older can have drivers licenses, and once you have your license you cannot drive with your friends in the car until you reach a certain age. You cannot legally drink if you are not 21. You cannot marry your first cousin or a sibling or a parent, even if the two of you believe you are in love.

The law legitimately discriminates when there is a compelling societal reason for doing so. And for all of time, even in cultures such as ancient Greece that accepted homosexuality, marriage has always been limited to the union between a man and a woman. The reason: Marriage is not about bringing the spouses happiness, because that has no value to society. It is about the children and providing the proper forum in which to raise them.

Which brings me to Mr. Leno’s and others contention that this will strengthen marriage. Let us see what supporters of legalizing same sex nuptials have to say on the matter.

Mr. Speaker, permission to read?

Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society." (Paula Ettelbrick, quoted in "Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?" by William B. Rubenstein, Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 398, 400.)(frc.com)

Even more to the point is this quote by Michelangelo Signorile, homosexual activist and writer. He says the goal of homosexuals is to “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution… The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely” (“Bridal Wave,” OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161).

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

Homosexual pundit Andrew Sullivan has said the promiscuousness which he calls “openness” in many gay relationships would in reality fortify heterosexual marriages by allowing straight couples to see that adultery doesn’t necessarily destroy a marriage. Furthermore, once gay “marriage” is allowed, the faithful nature of traditional unions will be transformed accordingly. He says this is a good thing.

Finally, consider this plank from the gay rights platform created at the 1972 convention of the National Coalition of Gay Organizations in Chicago. It demanded the “repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.”

Members, this is radical. It this really what you want? This a bad idea for marriage, for children, and for society. Let us not corrupt a definition to destroy a time-tested, venerable, and yet – today – fragile institution. I urge your “No” vote.