First day of the new term – here come the bad bills!

Well, it’s that time of year again.  There’s a chill in the air in Sacramento, the lawmakers are returning to the Capitol, and bad public policy legislation is being introduced.

In a few hours I’ll be sworn in for my second two-year term along with 79 other State Assemblymembers and 20 of the 40 Senators.  As part of today’s ceremony, several lawmakers will introduce the first legislation of the year.  Among these are two bills of particular note: one of them from Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) that would expand the definition of marriage to gay and lesbian couples (the fifth year he has introduced it – Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill this year), and the other from Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) that would allow heterosexual couples to register as domestic partners.  In California today, thanks to Senator Migden’s 2006 legislation, homosexual domestic partners have the same state tax benefits as married couples.

I oppose these measures. 

Mr. Leno’s bill hopelessly blurs the line of traditional marriage to the point that under the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to the First Amendment, we might see a devout Saudi Arabian immigrant suing under religious discrimination reasons to allow him to have four wives in California.  Or, we could see NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) suing to lower the age of consent to allow relationships between adult males and boys.  After all, if marriage is no longer marriage, then anything goes.  I do not dispute that two people can love each other and care for each other, but marriage has been defined by thousands of years of tradition and experience.  The Legislature ought not to take a step down this slippery slope. 

Sen. Migden’s proposal is just as problematic.  Study after study has shown that traditional marriage is good for couples and for their children.  Just because, more and more people chose to cohabitate or have children out of wedlock does not mean that government should revise policy to give tax and legal sanction to these relationships.  A recent report from the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (MFMER) confirmed the benefits of marriage with a longer life, lower rates of domestic violence and sexual assault, and stronger financial stability.  Importantly, Mayo’s research showed that “Committed but unmarried couples don't show the same benefit.”  So, why should the Legislature approve a bill that dilutes the benefits of marriage, spreading scarce tax breaks out to people who are in a relationship that is much less likely to advantage them or their children?

Today’s San Francisco Chronicle ran an article about these two bills.  I was quoted in a comment about Sen. Migden’s bill.

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Orange County, said unmarried couples who live together are more likely to break up.

"Eventually, there would be no distinction between parents with kids, and those people who are simply roommates who file for financial advantages," he said. "I don't want to incentivize outcomes that are not the most optimum either for couples or children."

The entire article is posted below.

Well, I have to be off to the opening day festivities.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

SACRAMENTO

Bill would expand domestic partner law in California
Migden's measure includes all straight unmarried couples

Lynda Gledhill, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Monday, December 4, 2006

(12-04) 04:00 PST Sacramento -- Responding to the growing trend of couples raising children out of wedlock, a San Francisco lawmaker plans to introduce a bill today that would give young and middle-age heterosexual couples who are not married the right to register as domestic partners.

The new bill and the expected reintroduction of legislation that would grant same-sex partners the right to marry are already drawing the ire of social conservatives and may once again put Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in the difficult position of taking sides on the politically divisive issue of defining marriage.

State Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, said she decided to pursue legislation allowing heterosexual couples to register as domestic partners when she saw that so many more children are being born to unmarried women, many of whom live with the fathers.

"This is a very practical expansion that absolutely reflects the new family unit today," Migden said. "We're trying to provide the proper benefits for the families that exist today."

Couples would not have to have children, however, to register under Migden's bill.

Conservatives said the last thing the state should be doing is discouraging marriage.

"Talk about a government disincentive to be married," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a statewide pro-family organization. "It's appalling that just about anyone and everyone could be virtually married to each other, without being really married as a husband and wife."

Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill.

Migden carried the legislation in 1999 setting up California's domestic partner law and said she had wanted to include all couples at that point. However, the law as adopted allows only gay and lesbian couples or different-sex couples in which one partner is over age 62 to register. Many seniors decide not to marry to protect their pension benefits. There are currently about 40,000 registered domestic partners, according to the secretary of state.

"When it first, began this was envisioned as an alternative to marriage, but frankly, this isn't political statement, this is a reflection of the new family configuration, like it or not," Migden said.

Data released last week by the National Center for Health Statistics show that out-of-wedlock births in the United States have climbed to an all-time high, accounting for nearly 4 in 10 babies born last year. Rather than teen mothers, more of the children are being born to women in their 20s, reflecting a growing number of people who are putting off marriage or living together without getting married.

Migden said allowing couples to register as domestic partners could actually strengthen their bond and eventually lead to marriage. Domestic partners have access to each other's medical insurance, unemployment insurance and survivor benefits in some counties. Just this past year, California law was expanded to allow domestic partners to file joint state tax returns.

"Perhaps providing benefits will lead to marriage by stabilizing couples with children," she said.

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Orange County, said unmarried couples who live together are more likely to break up.

"Eventually, there would be no distinction between parents with kids, and those people who are simply roommates who file for financial advantages," he said. "I don't want to incentivize outcomes that are not the most optimum either for couples or children."

Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a leading lobbying group for gay and lesbian rights, said no other state has a separate institution for marriage open to everyone.

"Domestic partners are a separate and unequal institution," he said, noting that he had not seen details of Migden's bill. "You don't get federal benefits or protections, so I'm not sure what category of straight people would want to take that on and wouldn't want to get married."

Kors said the best way to make things equal would be to allow everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, to get married.

"All families should have access to the same rights, and the best way to do that is to end the discrimination in marriage," he said.

Equality California is again supporting a bill that would make marriage gender neutral. Schwarzenegger vetoed the same bill last year, saying courts or voters should make that decision. Today is the first day of the new legislative session, and each lawmaker can introduce one bill, often using the occasion to highlight the issue that will be most important to him or her.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco said he will reintroduce the same-sex marriage bill, noting that the courts have said it is an issue the Legislature should decide. He also pointed to a recent Public Policy Institute of California poll showing that a plurality of Californians supports marriage equality.

"Californians support fairness and equality," Leno said. "There is no reason to suggest that there is one group of citizens who are not worthy of a marriage license for whom we have to construct a parallel system."

In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22, an initiative that changed state statutes to ban same-sex marriage in California. Several court cases on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage are making their way through the courts.

Thomasson said changing the proposed law would violate the voters' will as expressed in their decision supporting Prop. 22. "Californians are relying on Gov. Schwarzenegger to keep his promise to veto homosexual marriages unless the voters first change the law on marriage themselves," he said.

Signatures are being gathered to qualify another ballot measure that would reinforce the position in California law that marriage can be between only one man and one woman. The measure would also eliminate many rights of domestic partners, including their ability to have health benefits or adopt their partner's children.

E-mail Lynda Gledhill at lgledhill@sfchronicle.com.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/04/BAGGPMOUL01.DTL&type=politics

Comments

[DeVore Constituent]

Mr. DeVore:

I am a heterosexual, politically moderate constituent of yours, and after reading this post, I am embarrassed to have you as my representative in Sacramento. Your "slippery slope" argument is unfounded and out of touch.

In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, William Eskridge and Darren Spedale, coauthors of the book "Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned From the Evidence," summarize their findings as follows: Seventeen years after recognizing same-sex relationships in Scandinavia there are higher marriage rates for heterosexuals, lower divorce rates, lower rates for out-of-wedlock births, lower STD rates, more stable and durable gay relationships, more monogamy among gay couples, and so far no slippery slope to polygamy, incestuous marriages, or "man-on-dog" unions. From the op-ed:

[T]here is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry weakens the institution. If anything, the numbers indicate the opposite. A decade after Denmark, Norway and Sweden passed their respective partnership laws, heterosexual marriage rates had risen 10.7% in Denmark; 12.7% in Norway; and a whopping 28.8% in Sweden. In Denmark over the last few years, marriage rates are the highest they've been since the early 1970s. Divorce rates among heterosexual couples, on the other hand, have fallen. A decade after each country passed its partnership law, divorce rates had dropped 13.9% in Denmark; 6% in Norway; and 13.7% in Sweden. On average, divorce rates among heterosexuals remain lower now than in the years before same-sex partnerships were legalized.

In addition, out-of-wedlock birthrates in each of these countries contradict the suggestion by social conservatives that gay marriage will lead to great increases in out-of-wedlock births and therefore less family stability for children. In Denmark, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births was 46% in 1989; now it is 45%. In Norway, out-of-wedlock births jumped from 14% in 1980 to 45% right before partnerships were adopted in 1993; now they stand at 51%, a much lower rate of increase than in the decade before same-sex unions. The Swedish trend mirrors that of Norway, with much lower rates of increase post-partnership than pre-partnership.

Is there a correlation, then, between same-sex marriage and a strengthening of the institution of marriage? It would be difficult, and suspect, to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between these trends in heterosexual marriage and marriage rights for gays and lesbians. But the facts demonstrate that there is no proof that same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage, or children. An optimistic reading of the facts might even suggest that the energy and enthusiasm that same-sex couples bring to the institution of marriage may cause unmarried heterosexual couples to take a fresh look at marriage as an option.

The authors' caution here about gay marriage as a boon to heterosexual marriage is warranted. Correlation is not causation, and it would presume too much from a mere correlation to conclude that a small number of gay marriages in these societies had a significant positive impact on marriage itself, just as it would presume too much from the opposite correlation (if one existed) that they had a significant negative effect on marriage. But it is at least possible from these numbers to say that gay marriage has not led to any significant harm to marriage as an institution. Every year that goes by adds to the strength of this conclusion.

Eskridge and Spedale also find benefits to gay relationships:

Our research has also uncovered additional social benefits. In dozens of interviews with partnered couples and through other sources, we found that marriage rights had an important beneficial effect not only on the couples themselves, but on their local and national communities as well. Couples reported that their relationships were stronger and more durable, that relationships with family members had deepened, that co-workers had become more tolerant and supportive, and their children felt greater validation by having married parents. Many couples reported a greater emphasis on monogamy, which may be reflected by the fact that national rates of HIV and STD infections declined in each of the Scandinavian countries in the years after they passed their partnership laws.

Fears about slippery slopes, commonly expressed whenever there has been a change in marriage policy, have also proven unfounded so far:

Finally, what about the "slippery slope" argument — that same-sex marriage would start a dangerous movement toward legal recognition of socially unacceptable relationships? This hasn't happened in Scandinavia; 17 years later, there are still no calls for recognizing polygamy, incestual marriage or marriage to animals. Danes you ask about the slippery slope think you are joking. They realize that same-sex marriages serve essentially the same goal as opposite-sex marriages: lifetime commitment to your better half, the person who completes you.

Yes, you can find advocates for polygamy and other changes in marriage in Scandinavia and among queer theorists and academics in the United States. But there have always been such advocates, going back to the days of the "free love" movement among radicals in the U.S. in the early 20th century. You can find advocates for anything, complete with a Yahoo group and an organization of the like-minded. Google has been a great resource for slippery-slope fearmongering. But the fact is, neither polygamy nor these other destinations down the slope have caught on as serious legal reform as a result of protecting gay families anywhere in the world.

Eskridge and Spedale conclude:

Rather than scapegoating gay couples as the attackers from which marriage needs "defending," pundits and politicians alike should look to no-fault divorce, prenuptial agreements and legal recognition of heterosexual cohabitation as the real culprits of weakened marriage. As the evidence indicates, societies where gay couples have the rights of marriage seem to be doing just fine.

The debate over gay marriage for the past two decades has largely been a duel of abstractions, hopes and fears, unsupported claims, and hypotheticals. That's been true on both sides of the debate, though for gay families the stakes are far from theoretical. With several countries now recognizing gay marriages, and with almost 1/5 of the U.S. population living in states with gay marriages or civil unions, this period of abstract debate is coming to an end. The debate will start to become an empirical one.

What we can say with confidence so far, based on the evidence, is that the sky doesn't immediately fall when a society recognizes gay relationships. As time passes without the sort of cataclysmic consequences predicted by opponents of gay marriage, we will be able to say more. We may soon be able to say, with good evidence to back it up, that recognizing gay marriage leads to greater stability in gay families, with benefits to gay couples, children raised in gay families, and communities. The signs so far are pointing in the right direction.

(Jubal, I apologize for the length of this post, but it is important that Mr. DeVore actually learns the facts.)

[clprevatt]

Mr. DeVore:

Your belief that allowing same gender couples to marry would somehow lead to a devout Saudi Arabian immigrant suing under religious discrimination reasons to allow him to have four wives in California; or NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) suing to lower the age of consent to allow relationships between adult males and boys, is ridiculous. And I am curious why you chose to us a Saudi Arabian immigrant in your example and not select a religious faith, such as a Mormon from Utah. I’m not sure if your analogy should be confused with racism, bigotry, both, or simply designed to whip up hysteria.

Your argument in opposition to Senator Migden’s bill actually supports the argument for same gender marriage. “Study after study has shown that traditional marriage is good for couples and for their children. A recent report from the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (MFMER) confirmed the benefits of marriage with a longer life, lower rates of domestic violence and sexual assault, and stronger financial stability. Importantly, Mayo’s research showed that “Committed but unmarried couples don't show the same benefit.”

Mr. DeVore, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that Nationwide, 701,733 same gender partner households represented 0.6% of all coupled households in 2003, according to the Census Bureau. Of these, 363,072 were male partners and 338,661 were female partners. In the western region of the United States 21.1% of the male couples and 33.1% of the female couples have children.

With marriage having such a positive impact on children, your argument supports the need to legalize same gender marriage for the sake of these children, their parents, and society as a whole.

If you feel so strongly about the benefits of marriage you should be supporting the effort to allow all committed (2 person) couples to be married and propose legislation to make divorce illegal.

[ocwatcher]

Is marriage a religious event or governmental? If it's religious, government has no business in it; if it's not, it's just a legal contract between two people.

I thought Republicans wanted smaller, less intrusive government. What is government's stake in who I decide to marry? None.

Please return to your principals and focus on the real work of government.

And, for no reason, I am a heterosexual married man. I am just disgusted with government being so ineffective at its primary mission and running around on puesdo-religious rants.

[Chuck DeVore]

DeVore Constituent:

Don’t be so quick to dismiss the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. They did a study on American people. Scandinavia is Scandinavia. America is America. There are very different social conventions between here and there. Also, there is no necessary link between the Scandinavian recognition of same-sex couple and “higher marriage rates for heterosexuals, lower divorce rates, lower rates for out-of-wedlock births, lower STD rates…” etc. In logic, that is known as “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” a logical fallacy which includes such things as coincidental correlation and false causes.

The facts in America are what they are and they run counter to your assertions. Furthermore, Europe is dying demographically. In a few decades, due to strongly negative population trends, the Europe we know of today will be gone. I’m sure that you don’t advocate imitating Europe in this, or very many other matters.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

[DanC]

Chris - Chuck is catering to his base.

Chuck, I would love for you to tell me how allowing gays and lesbians to wed weakens the insitituions of marriage. Isn't divorce a greater threat. It's ok to Brittany Spears to marry and annual in 48 hours, or for Rush Limbaugh to marry 4X or Newt Gingrich to marry 3X, or Larry King to marry 7X simply because they are heterosexual. Allow gays and lesbians to marry won't hurt my marriage one iota. And it won't hurt yours either. I don't see roving bands of gay banditos breaking into suburban homes at dinner hour to destroy family life.

I can see how an organized religion can ban gay marriage; religion is not a democracy. But as far as the state is concerned, denying gays and lesbians the right to marry seems to violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Hypothethically speaking, how would you react to finding out one of your kids is gay and wants to get married to a same-sex partner?

And as far as Scandinavia goes, you're wrong on that too. BTW, before you divert the point here, I am no advocating higher taxes -- just pointing out that Nordic nations have a high standard of living than Americans do.

from Scientific American
October 16, 2006

The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology

Are higher taxes and strong social "safety nets" antagonistic to a prosperous market economy? The evidence is now in

By Jeffrey D. Sachs

One of the great challenges of sustainable development is to combine society's desires for economic prosperity and social security. For decades economists and politicians have debated how to reconcile the undoubted power of markets with the reassuring protections of social insurance. America's supply-siders claim that the best way to achieve well-being for America's poor is by spurring rapid economic growth and that the higher taxes needed to fund high levels of social insurance would cripple prosperity. Austrian-born free-market economist Friedrich August von Hayek suggested that high taxation would be a "road to serfdom," a threat to freedom itself.*
Most of the debate in the U.S. is clouded by vested interests and by ideology. Yet there is by now a rich empirical rec-ord to judge these issues scientifically. The evidence may be found by comparing a group of relatively free-market economies that have low to moderate rates of taxation and social outlays with a group of social-welfare states that have high rates of taxation and social outlays.

Not coincidentally, the low-tax, high-income countries are mostly English-speaking ones that share a direct historical lineage with 19th-century Britain and its theories of economic laissez-faire. These countries include Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S. The high-tax, high-income states are the Nordic social democracies, notably Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, which have been governed by left-of-center social democratic parties for much or all of the post–World War II era. They combine a healthy respect for market forces with a strong commitment to antipoverty programs. Budgetary outlays for social purposes average around 27 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the Nordic countries and just 17 percent of GDP in the English-speaking countries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friedrich Von Hayek was wrong
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On average, the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance. Poverty rates are much lower there, and national income per working-age population is on average higher. Unemployment rates are roughly the same in both groups, just slightly higher in the Nordic countries. The budget situation is stronger in the Nordic group, with larger surpluses as a share of GDP.

The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways. Most important, they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education. All of them, but especially Sweden and Finland, have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness. Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D, the highest ratio in the world today. On average, the Nordic nations spend 3 percent of GDP on R&D, compared with around 2 percent in the English-speaking nations.

The Nordic states have also worked to keep social expenditures compatible with an open, competitive, market-based economic system. Tax rates on capital are relatively low. Labor market policies pay low-skilled and otherwise difficult-to-employ individuals to work in the service sector, in key quality-of-life areas such as child care, health, and support for the elderly and disabled.

The results for the households at the bottom of the income distribution are astoundingly good, especially in contrast to the mean-spirited neglect that now passes for American social policy. The U.S. spends less than almost all rich countries on social services for the poor and disabled, and it gets what it pays for: the highest poverty rate among the rich countries and an exploding prison population. Actually, by shunning public spending on health, the U.S. gets much less than it pays for, because its dependence on private health care has led to a ramshackle system that yields mediocre results at very high costs.

Von Hayek was wrong. In strong and vibrant democracies, a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness.

[It ain't my fault]

No fault divorce is a greater threat to marriage.

[AJ]

Devore,
I am utterly disgusted and saddened by the way in which you make your arguments. You trumpet the benefits and social value inherent in marriage, yet refuse to extend that institution to a group that would only increase those benefits. You also continue on with this stupid and fear-inducing rhetoric of "how far do we go?" I can't help but be saddened that people like you compare homosexual behavior to polygamy and pedophilia. The union of TWO consenting adults is not analagous to either of those situations and you know this to be true but want to try and scare people into supporting your point of view.

Also, when shown that gay marriage has worked in other countries and had produced some of the benefits you certainly value, you simply discount it by saying, well that is a different country, and America is America. In which case, according to you, we should never look to other countries and their policies, because, well, they are different and policies affect countries differently. Although this is certainly true to an extent, this shouldn't discount the value in looking to other countries and indeed other states to see what we in the US and California should do. Of course, you also cite a study which includes data from other states, which would in light of your argument that America is different than other countries, should also alarm you, as no state is like California, as Minnesota is Minnesota and California is California.

Lastly, you discount the value of the Scandinavian study as one of “Post hoc ergo propter hoc”, yet the same could be true of your dependence on the Mayo study, which ultimately verifies the same type of analysis. To say that the benefits of marriage include "a longer life, lower rates of domestic violence and sexual assault, and stronger financial stability" is simply a causal fallacy, once again, which you are certainly aware of. Ultimately the causal and correlational links are going to be suspect in any study without a proper control, which is virtually impossible in a study of different marriage setups.

[Tylerh]

Or, we could see NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) suing

As one of your constituents I have but one thing to say:

SHAME ON YOU.

I understand that you object to gay marriage. Fine. But referencing an organization that functionally probably doesn't exist to whip-up pedophile fear-mongering is demagoguery, not representation. Irvine deserves better. Please strive to re-attain the habits of mind that got you regarded as one of the brighter bulbs in the legislature.

Thank you.

[Chuck DeVore]

To my “utterly disgusted” and “embarrassed” constituents:

Mr. Mark Leno’s first bill on the topic of “gender neutral” marriage, AB 19, failed in 2005, 35-37 and 37-36, with 41 needed for passage, meaning that many ostensibly more “enlightened” Democrats voted against this bill or abstained.

AB 849, Mr. Leno’s second attempt, was a gut and amend bill that dealt with “Fish and game: marine research” when introduced in 2005. It was completely changed in late 2006 and turned into another “gender neutral” marriage bill. It passed the Senate 21-15, with only Democrat support and one Democrat voting against; then passed the Assembly 41-35, with three Democrats opposing. The Governor vetoed this bill when it hit his desk.

I don’t contend that the institution of marriage in America couldn’t be stronger and better. As with many other traditional institutions, it has been under assault from a society that values it less and less (although divorce rates in America did drop after hitting a peak a few years back).

Making marriage stronger cannot be done, however, by redefining marriage or by extending marriage’s benefits to any couple who applies for it. Traditional marriage is important for couple and for the children they raise. Humans must expend need tremendous effort over many, many years to successfully raise their children to be fully functioning adults. The institution of has been found to be the best framework to do this in a loving environment. You may wish otherwise, but the data confirms this.

Again, I don’t doubt that people of all types can love each other in relationships that fall outside the bounds of traditional marriage. The point a public policy maker has to take into account is not whether this is so, but rather scarce public funds (favorable tax treatment) and official recognition should be conferred on any couple wanting it or whether it should be reserved for the larger benefit of society in recognition of the fact that traditional marriage is the best vehicle to raise up children into responsible adults.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

[NAMBLA is alive and well]

http://www.nambla.org/

[DanC]

Chuck -- do you have any actual evidence that unmarried people who live together are "more likely to break up?" Or did you pull that claim from some deep dark place?

I wonder how many friends you have who live together without being married or how many friends you hae who might be gay (but not out to you)?

[Biff]

The point a public policy maker has to take into account is not whether this is so, but rather scarce public funds (favorable tax treatment) [...] should be conferred on any couple wanting it or whether it should be reserved for the larger benefit of society in recognition of the fact that traditional marriage is the best vehicle to raise up children into responsible adults.

DeVore! Fiscal Watchdog! Brave defender of the public purse!

Since we're defending traditional marriage (and its tax benefits) For The Sake Of The Children, I assume that you'll be introducing a bill this term that makes a childless married couple liable, in the event of death or divorce, for refunding to the state the full value (plus interest and penalties, of course) of any "marriage dividend" they've accrued in the course of their barren union? In cases of death, the debt could be laid upon the surviving spouse, or the state could have first claim on the couple's estate.

Alternatively, why not introduce a bill that strips married couples of any tax benefits until they have children? After all, until children are involved, I can't possibly see what benefit society could derive from encouraging its citizens to live in stable, committed relationships.

[Bladerunner]

This type of thinking by Mr Devore is one of reasons why the poorly-funded Democrat, Mike Glover, ran 12% over Democratic registration, greater then any other Dem running in a Republican District in Red County.

[rebecca]

So Chuck believes gay couples shouldn't have the longer lives, more stable children, and greater likelihood of staying together that marriage confers, which he cites the Mayo study as finding? Thanks, Chuck. Very nice. Oh, well. Gays usually vote Democrat anyway, right? So who cares what happens to them.

[rebecca]

So Chuck believes gay couples shouldn't have the longer lives, more stable children, and greater likelihood of staying together that marriage confers, which he cites the Mayo study as finding? Thanks, Chuck. Very nice. Oh, well. Gays usually vote Democrat anyway, right? So who cares what happens to them.

[Chuck DeVore]

Bladerunner:

You're wrong on many counts.

1) Glover raised and spent $35,000 or so, one of only 25 of 100 challengers to raise over $1,000. I spent $1,100 on my reelection, so Glover outspent me about 30 to 1. Being frugal allowed me to send almost $100,000 to other Republican candidates.

2) I ran about 12 percent over GOP registration, in spite of being outspent.

Now, what were you saying again?

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

[One Who Knows]

This entire thread is making me ill.

Maybe we should go back to talking about football.

[Bladerunner]

Assemlyman--This is what I am saying. -Nice spin. $35,000 and 50 cents will get you a LA Times and nothing much else when you're a Democrat in a district with 55,000 more Reps then Dems. A drop in the bucket. How much did Daucher have to spend to almost beat a non-incumbent in a virtually even district? Millions? Glover needed 2 zeros on his total to be able to make it close, something that hasn't happened since the 1974 Assembly race when there was a 3rd candidate in the race. You didn't need to spend alot, people knew who the incumbent was, and your performed worse then not only the GOP incumbents but Jim Silva as well and only 1% better then Duvall. Nothing to write home to mom about fella.

Now, I believe you were about to respond to others who have some issues with your original poorly thought out analysis.

I don't think any of the Republican incumbents spent money on voter contact in their districts during the fall and they ran 17% to 20% over their registrations

[DanC]

Chuck --
You neglected to point out the wide disparity between GOP and Democratic registration in your district. Enjoy the advantage now as its changing fast.

When a supporter cuts you a check for your re-election campaign, aren't you obligated somehow to spend it on your re-election?

And if you don't spend it, shouldn't you perhaps return it?

NOYE TO ALL DeVORE CONTRIBUTORS: Chuck has enough cash so yu can write checks to other legislators.

Since you're flush with cash, are you going to be able to move that money over to other runs for office when you're termed out? Isn't this what got Cruz Bustmante in trouble?

And lastly, how much of a donation is it going to take to have you co-sponsor Leno's bill. $50K, $75K? Give us something to shoot for.

[Jubal]

Chuck is caught in a liberal blogswarm!

Keep swinging Chuck. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. It's a contradiction in terms. People of the same sex cannot marry anymore than I can marry a balde of grass. Marriage is between a man and a woman -- as simple as that.

[Chuck DeVore]

DanC, you wrote, "Chuck -- do you have any actual evidence that unmarried people who live together are 'more likely to break up?' Or did you pull that claim from some deep dark place?"

You asked for studies, here are two of many dozens that say what most folks understand inherently.

You can disagree with my stance -- the data is hard to dispute.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

Cohabitation: a Recipe for Marital Ruin

Shown to Put Partners and Kids at Risk

OTTAWA, 1 OCT. 2005 (ZENIT)
Living together is an increasingly popular option in many countries. But it can involve high social and emotional costs, says a new study, "Cohabitation and Marriage: How Are They Related?" The Ottawa-based Vanier Institute of the Family published the study Sept. 17.

The author, Anne-Marie Ambert, brings together the results of hundreds of research papers that examined the social, emotional and financial effects of cohabitation and marriage on men, women, children and society.

Cohabitation, the study observes, is often seen as entailing fewer responsibilities at a legal or financial level, and less fidelity than marriage. In recent years, however, de facto couples have sought and gained rights similar to those of married couples, in areas such as property, health insurance, pension plans, and child support.

Ambert notes that in Canada the marriage rate steeply declined in the 1990s, particularly in the province of Quebec. The United States has also seen marriage rates drop, though not as much as in Canada.

In both countries, the number of cohabiting couples has risen sharply. In 2000, more than 4.1 million heterosexual couples in the United States and 1.3 million in Canada cohabited. In 2001, 16% of all Canadian couples and 8.2% of all American couples were cohabiting. In Quebec the level reached 30%, the same proportion as in Sweden. Excluding Quebec, 11.7% of Canadian couples cohabit.

Divorce rates

The study cites data showing that cohabitation, in fact, leads to higher divorce rates. Ambert cites the Canadian General Social Survey, which found, in the 20-to-30 age group, 63% of women whose first relationship had been cohabitational had separated by 1995. This compared to 33% of women who had married first.

Domestic Violence in cohabitating couples study:

“Aggression is at least twice as common among cohabiters as it is among married partners,” states yet another expert, Dr. Jan E. Stets, in a major study comparing cohabitational and marital aggression. In a one year period, 35 out of every 100 cohabiting couples have experienced some form of physical aggression, compared to 15 out of every 100 married couples. The lowest percent was found among married couples at 19 percent.

Jan E. Stets, “Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation, “Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 (1991): 669-680.

[Chuck DeVore]

DanC and Bladerunner: a win is a win.

Did you guys wake up cranky today? Or did I just touch a raw nerve? (I suppose that's what blogging is about at its best!)

When I constantly saw Mike Glover's TV ads on Fox News (at least two different ads), I resisted the idea to spend money on my reelection. Instead, I sent some checks to other Republicans, such as newly reelected Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia. I suppose I could have tried to crush Glover by an even wider margin than the 21-point blowout that I did win by, but what's the point? I'll be in Sacramento for the next two years, not Glover, and Bonnie Garcia, who won by 3 points, will be there with me. That's the point.

And Bladerunner, Glover raised considerably more than any other Democrat challenger without a chance in O.C. I credit him with running a spirited campaign. With Glover being a lawyer, I noticed the greater part of his donations coming from fellow lawyers. Good for him.

I you want truly contested elections, though, back fair redistricting.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

[Jubal]

Chuck is caught in a liberal blogswarm!

Keep swinging Chuck. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. It's a contradiction in terms. People of the same sex cannot marry anymore than I can marry a blade of grass. Marriage is between a man and a woman -- as simple as that.

[Biff]

Chuck ... the first study that you use to prove your point is a C-C-C-CANADIAN study???!?

But Canada is not America! They've got socialized medicine! Some people living there don't even speak English! America is its own special island afloat in the world, and no other study of the human experience anywhere else in the world could ever possibly even the remotest applicability here in the good 'ol USA.

Or is "America is America" only applicable when people cite research studies that don't support your conclusions?

[ocwatcher]

Hmm. Chuck, you should abortion, then, for women who are not in situation to best raise their children.

Heck, isn't our Republican president creating a less than ideal situation by sending our National Guard troops off to war for a year at a time or more?

What happens to those poor children?

I just don't see that it's government's role to socially engineer or even provide financial incentives to create families to raise children.

It's just so hypocritical: Republicans are going to say what's best for healthy children, then deny welfare to the single mom, fight against subsidized child care and obstruct efforts to spend more on public education.

Face it, or at least admit it, it's all about religion, which has no place in politics.

[Chuck DeVore]

Biff, there's a raft of studies out there proving my contention. I just found the first one that was recent and posted it. A blog is not a PhD dissertation and I'm not going to do research for a bunch of people who won't change there minds regardless of the data shown to them.

DanC claimed I pulled the assertion out of a “deep dark place” and I responded that there are plenty of studies to back my assertion.

Now, if you don’t want to accept that, fine, then don’t. Facts are facts and my initial point stands: government should strengthen, not weaken, supports for traditional marriage and it ought not to redefine marriage in an era when married couples and children need all the support they can get.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

[Chuck DeVore]

OC watcher, “it's all about religion, which has no place in politics” that’s a classic. So, you inject the topic of religion, which I had not at all mentioned, and then blame me for what, the results of dozens of studies supporting my common sense position?

As for welfare to the single mother, that’s what the 1996 welfare reform battle was all about (which President Clinton supported). Republican argued that welfare builds dependency in people while supporting more out of wedlock births and the impoverishment of women. We are now 10 years into welfare reform and we can see dramatically reduced welfare rolls and increased employment of people who used to be on welfare. Looks like the experiment in tough love worked.

Public education spending is at all time highs, I guess it should be producing at all time highs too, but it’s not.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

[devore for senate!]

stick to your guns mr. devore. you speak the truth with dignity which is why so many are attacking you. you have my vote.

devore for senate!

[Bladerunner]

Again, $35,000 might as well be $3,500 in that district. TV advertising in an assembly race is overrated, especially a Dem placing ads on Fox. Unless he was telling people you and leno were trying to push pot with the hemp bill and then the folks who turned off Rush in the morning to watch Fox in the evening might have responded.

As foryour expenditures, you mention garcia but not daucher. Victory has a thousand fathers, defeat an orphan. Or did you dis daucher when it came time to dish out the money? Your rather limp win will only encourage the Dems to spend more money, not on Fox ads but on building their base which might never make the difference for the assembly candidate but sure will help the statewide ticket.

As for the marriage issue, I respect yours and Jubals point of view but the issue and the legislation has been so overanalyzed and overargued(and DOA since even if it passed Arnold will veto it again) that your post was more like a scud then a thoughtful analysis, designed to poke the liberal beehive(you got a bulls eye there)and get kumbaya with the Brownback crowd.

[DanC]

I can match you study for study: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349. Sorry for the long post Matt.

BTW: The Congressional Budget Offce has same-sex marriage would have a positive impact on the budget and that would carry over to state budgets too and that children of gays and lesbians aren't impacted by their parents' sexual orientation.

Census 2000 also collected data on unmarried-partner households of the same and opposite genders. A special report on this topic from the Census Bureau indicated that the number of same-gender unmarried-partner households was 594691 in 2000.2 The increase over the 1990 count is likely a result of changes in social climate with regard to gay and lesbian relationships, a willingness on the part of census respondents to identify their sexual orientation, and use of anonymous versus in-person survey methods.

Numerous demographers report that this number, although significant, is still likely to be a considerable undercount of the actual number of same-gender partner households in the United States. Several factors explain this undercount. For confidentiality reasons, some couples may have preferred not to identify the nature of their relationship on a government survey. Some couples may define their relationship as something other than husband/wife or unmarried partner. Other couples may consider themselves married according to a more broad interpretation of the social construct of civil marriage. However, for the purposes of the 2000 census report, after the enactment of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, the Census Bureau was required to invalidate any responses that designated a same-gender individual as a spouse and assign those responses to the same-gender unmarried-partner category.3 Research indicates that the Census Bureau missed at least 16% to 19% of all gay or lesbian couples in the 2000 count.4

Despite the likelihood of an undercount and the legal restrictions on the Census Bureau resulting from the enactment of DOMA, Census 2000 represents the most comprehensive source of data on same-gender partnered households to date, allowing demographers to analyze data at the national, state, city/town, and community levels.*

Specific Census 2000 findings include:

Same-gender couples live in 99.3% of all US counties.

Same-gender couples are raising children in at least 96% of all US counties.

Nearly one quarter of all same-gender couples are raising children.

Nationwide, 34.3% of lesbian couples are raising children, and 22.3% of gay male couples are raising children (compared with 45.6% of married heterosexual and 43.1% of unmarried heterosexual couples raising children).

Vermont has the largest aggregation of same gender-couples (1% of all households) followed by California, Washington, Massachusetts, and Oregon.

Regionally, the South has the highest percentage of same-gender couples who are parents; 36.1% of lesbian couples and 23.9% of gay couples in the South are raising children.

The second highest percentage is seen in the Midwest, where 34.7% of lesbian couples and 22.9% of gay couples are parenting children.

In the West, 33.1% of lesbian couples and 21.1% of gay couples are parents.

In the Northeast, 32.6% of lesbian couples and 21.7% of gay couples are raising children.

The states with the highest percentages of lesbian couples raising children are Mississippi (43.8%), South Dakota and Utah (42.3% each), and Texas (40.9%).

The states with the highest percentages of gay male couples raising children are Alaska (36%), South Dakota (33%), Mississippi (31%), and Idaho and Utah (30% each).

Six percent of same-gender couples are raising children who have been adopted compared with 5.1% of heterosexual married couples and 2.6% of unmarried heterosexual couples.

Eight percent of same-gender parents are raising children with special health care needs, compared with 8.3% of heterosexual unmarried parents and 5.8% of heterosexual married parents.

Of same-gender partners raising children, 41.1% have been together for 5 years or longer, whereas 19.9% of heterosexual unmarried couples have stayed together for that duration.

It is difficult to determine exactly how many children are being raised by a gay or lesbian parent or parents because of many of the same factors that impact the determination of the number of same-gender couples. Estimates range between 1 and 10 million.5,6 The majority of these children were born in the context of a heterosexual relationship. Two thirds of these children live in the 42 states in which second-parent adoption is specifically forbidden or not guaranteed by statute or court ruling.

For same-gender couples and their children, enactment of marriage amendments halts the possibility of obtaining many legal and financial rights, benefits, and protections such as:

legal recognition of the couple's commitment to and responsibility for one another;

legal recognition of joint parenting rights when a child is born or adopted;

legal recognition of a child's relationship to both parents;

joint or coparent adoption (in most states);

second-parent adoption (in most states);

foster parenting (in some states);

eligibility for public housing and housing subsidies;

ability to own a home as "tenants by the entirety" (ie, a special kind of property ownership for married couples through which both spouses have the right to enjoy the entire property, and when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse gets title to the property [in some states]);

protection of marital home from creditors (in some states);

automatic financial decision-making authority on behalf of one's partner;

access to employer-based health insurance and other benefits for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children (considered a taxable benefit for same-gender couples by the Internal Revenue Service, which is not the case for married heterosexual couples);

access to spouse benefits under Medicare and certain Medicaid benefits (spouses are considered essential to individuals receiving Medicaid benefits and, therefore, are eligible for medical assistance themselves; family coverage programs would deny coverage to same-gender partners and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children);

ability to enroll nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children in public and medical assistance programs;

ability of both parents to consent to medical care or authorize emergency medical treatment for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;

ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated or ailing partner;

recognition as next of kin for the purpose of visiting partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child in hospitals or other facilities;

ability to take advantage of the federal Family Medical Leave Act to care for a sick partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;

ability to obtain life insurance (because of findings of no insurable interest in one's partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child);

ability to obtain joint homeowner and automobile insurance policies and take advantage of family discounts;

recognition as an authority in educational settings to register a child for school, be involved in a child's education plan, and provide consent on waivers and sign permission forms;

ability to travel with a child if it will require proof of being a legal parent;

access to spousal benefits of worker's compensation;

ability to file joint income tax returns and take advantage of family-related deductions;

privilege afforded to married heterosexual couples that protects one spouse from testifying against another in court;

immigration and residency privileges for partners and children from other countries;

protections and compensation for families of crime victims (state and federal programs);

access to the courts for a legally structured means of dissolution of the relationship (divorce is not recognized because marriage is not recognized);

visitation rights and/or custody of children after the dissolution of a partnership;

children's rights to financial support from and ongoing relationships with both parents should the partnership be dissolved;

legal standing of one partner if a child is removed from the legal/adoptive parent and home by child protective services;

domestic violence protections such as restraining orders;

automatic, tax- and penalty-free inheritance from a deceased partner or parent of shared assets, property, or personal items by the surviving partner and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;

children's right to maintain a relationship with a nonbiological/not-jointly-adopting parent in the event of the death of the other parent;

surviving parent's right to maintain custody of and care for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;

Social Security survivor benefits for a surviving partner and children after the death of one partner;

exemptions from property tax increases in the event of the death of a partner (offered in some states to surviving spouses);

automatic access to pensions and other retirement accounts by surviving partner;

access to deceased partner's veteran's benefits;

ability to roll deceased partner's 401(k) funds into an individual retirement account without paying up to 70% of it in taxes and penalties; and

right to sue for wrongful death of a deceased partner.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined in 2004 that allowing civil marriage for same-gender couples would have a positive effect on the federal budget.21 The CBO found that allowing same-gender couples to marry would increase federal income tax revenues by $400 million annually to the end of 2010, resulting largely from the "marriage penalty tax." Although Social Security payments and spending on insurance coverage for partners of federal workers would rise over time, other expenditures such as Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income would decrease. The net result would be a savings of nearly $1 billion per year. The Williams Institute, a think tank at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law, had similar findings on the federal budget and for several state budgets.22

Psychosocial Effects
Because of the complex nature of the issues involved in this sociopolitical debate, psychosocial effects can be multifaceted. These effects can be observed at the personal, couple, parental, child, family, and even community levels.

As children, many gay and lesbian persons experience considerable isolation, peer rejection, ridicule, harassment, and/or depression at some time. At least 47% of gay and lesbian teens have seriously considered suicide, and 36% have actually attempted suicide.23 They may experience rejection by their families, homelessness, maltreatment in school, and violence. As adults, gay and lesbian people continue to experience social marginalization, discrimination, and hate-crime violence.

Nationwide political and religious debate over same-gender marriage has intensified an already unstable climate for gay men and lesbians in our society. The lack of societal tolerance, acceptance, and support that gay and lesbian individuals, couples, and their children experience can and does affect their psychosocial and physical health and safety.

Indeed, the US Department of Justice, in its 1997 publication A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes, noted that "[a] host of factors may create a climate in which people, motivated by their biases, take criminal action. Such factors include poor or uncertain economic conditions, racial stereotypes in films and on television, hate-filled discourse on talk shows or in political advertisements, the use of racial code language such as ‘welfare mothers’ and ‘inner city thugs,’ and an individual's personal experiences with members of particular minority groups."24

Similarly, children whose parents are of the same gender may experience social marginalization and become the objects of ridicule and harassment by other children and adults who do not understand or who disapprove of gay and lesbian parenting. Children experiencing this type of treatment may not know how to seek, or where to find, support. Although same-gender couples are raising children in 96% of all the counties in the United States, support services and trusted individuals are not available in all of these areas. Efforts to prohibit the establishment of student groups known as "gay-straight alliances" in various school districts and states may serve to worsen this situation.

Most children who have 1 or 2 gay or lesbian parents were born in the context of a heterosexual relationship. That relationship may still exist or may have been dissolved; if the latter, either or both partners may have found new partners of the same or different gender. More and more gay and lesbian adults are bringing children into long-term partnerships through adoption, alternative insemination, and surrogacy. Donors and surrogates may be anonymous or involved with the child and family to a greater or lesser degree.

Parenting Attitudes and Behavior, Personality, and Adjustment of Parents
Discriminatory practices are based on the assumption that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are different from heterosexual parents in ways that are detrimental to their children's well-being. However, few differences have been found in research conducted over the last 3 decades comparing lesbian and heterosexual mothers' self-esteem, psychological adjustment, and attitudes toward child rearing.25,26 Lesbian mothers fall within the range of normal psychological functioning on interviews and psychological assessments, and report scores on standardized measures of self-esteem, anxiety, depression, and parenting stress indistinguishable from those reported by heterosexual mothers.27

Lesbian mothers strongly endorse child-centered attitudes and commitment to their maternal roles28 and have been shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers.29 Lesbian and heterosexual mothers describe themselves similarly in marital and maternal interests, current lifestyles, and child-rearing practices.29 They report similar role conflicts, social support networks, and coping strategies.30,31

Empirical evidence reveals that gay fathers have substantial evidence of nurturance and investment in their paternal role and no differences from heterosexual fathers in providing appropriate recreation or encouraging autonomy. Gay fathers have been described to adhere to strict disciplinary guidelines, to place an emphasis on guidance and the development of cognitive skills, and to be involved in their children's activities.32,33 Overall, there are more similarities than differences in the parenting styles and attitudes of gay and nongay fathers.34,35

Children's Emotional and Social Development
Because most children whose parents are gay or lesbian have experienced the divorce of their biological parents, their subsequent psychological development has to be understood in that context. Whether they are subsequently raised by 1 or 2 separated parents and whether a stepparent has joined either of the biological parents are important factors for children that have rarely been addressed in research assessing psychological outcomes for these children. Similarly missing is an analysis of the role of the divorced "noncustodial" parent in the child's life.

The considerable research literature that has accumulated addressing this issue has generally revealed that children of divorced lesbian mothers grow up in ways that are very similar to children of divorced heterosexual mothers. Several studies comparing children who have a lesbian mother with children who have a heterosexual mother have failed to document any differences between such groups on personality measures, measures of peer-group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic success, or warmth and quality of family relationships.26,28,30,36–38 Children's self-esteem has been shown to be higher among adolescents whose mothers (of any sexual orientation) were in a new partnered relationship after divorce, compared with those whose mothers remained single, and among those who found out at a younger age that their parent was homosexual, compared with those who found out when they were older.

Concern has been raised that social stigmatization might lead to teasing and embarrassment for children about their parent's sexual orientation or their family constellation and restrict their ability to form and maintain friendships. Adult children of divorced lesbian mothers have recalled more teasing by peers during childhood than have adult children of divorced heterosexual parents.39 In general, children whose parents are gay or lesbian have been found to have normal relationships with childhood peers and to maintain social relationships appropriate for their developmental levels.23,27,36

Children born to and raised by lesbian couples seem to develop in ways that are indistinguishable from children raised by heterosexual parents. Ratings by their mothers and teachers have demonstrated children's social competence and the prevalence of behavioral difficulties to be comparable with population norms.25,40 In fact, growing up with parents who are lesbian or gay may confer some advantages to children. They have been described as more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children than children whose parents are heterosexual.41,42

In one study, children of heterosexual parents saw themselves as being somewhat more aggressive than did children of lesbian parents, and they were seen by parents and teachers as more bossy, negative, and domineering. Children of lesbian parents saw themselves as more lovable and were seen by parents and teachers as more affectionate, responsive, and protective of younger children, compared with children of heterosexual parents.30 In another investigation, children of lesbian parents reported their self-esteem to be similar to that of children of heterosexual parents and saw themselves as similar in aggressiveness and sociability.31

Early studies that attempted to evaluate the well-being of children whose parents are gay or lesbian encountered predictable challenges in sample selection, sample size, investigator bias, and measurement.

Recent investigations have attempted to overcome some of these challenges and clarify some factors that promote optimal well-being of this growing population of children. The adjustment of children who have 2 mothers seems to be related to their parents' satisfaction with their relationship and specifically with the division of responsibility they have worked out with regard to child care and household chores.43 Children with lesbian parents who reported greater relationship satisfaction, more egalitarian division of household and paid labor,44 and more regular contact with grandparents and other relatives45 were rated by parents and teachers to be better adjusted and to have fewer behavioral problems. These findings are consistent with general knowledge among students of child development, namely that greater stability and nurturance within a family system predicts greater security and fewer behavioral problems among children.

Recent publications from 2 population-based samples lend additional strength to earlier evidence demonstrating that children's well-being is not threatened as a result of growing up with lesbian parents.46,47 The importance of these studies is that the research was planned and conducted by people who had no particular interest or investment in research regarding same-gender parents. In both cases the investigations regarding lesbian parents and their children were posthoc analyses; thus, neither the sample nor the methods were influenced by a bias in support of gay parents.

The first of these community-based studies was based on data from a cohort study of 14000 mothers of children born within a particular county in England during 1 year. The study examined the quality of parent-child relationships and socioemotional and gender development in a community sample of 5–7-year-old children with lesbian mothers. Thirty-nine lesbian mother families were compared with 74 two-parent heterosexual families and 60 families headed by single heterosexual mothers.46 No differences were found in maternal warmth, emotional involvement, enjoyment of motherhood, frequency of conflicts, supervision of the child, abnormal behaviors reported by parents or teachers in the child, children's self-esteem, or psychiatric disorders.

In the same study, parents who raised children alone reported greater stress, increased severity of parent-child conflicts, and less warmth, enjoyment of parenting, and imaginative play than did parents in a couple relationship, whether lesbian or heterosexual. Teachers reported more behavioral problems among children in single-parent families than among children who had 2 parents in the home irrespective of their sexual orientation.46

[Chuck DeVore]

I gave Daucher $1,000. I wish I could have afforded more. If you reread your post and my original post you may find some homor regarding your comment about the bills' likely passing and playing to the base. If I'm playing to my base in my criticisms, then one may say the same about the bills' authors.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore

[Bladerunner]

I don't disagree with your assertion that Leno is playing to the SF base. But the difference is that win or lose this is a crucial philisophical cause that needs to be addressed in his view. You know its DOA. The more adept analogy would be for you to introduce a constitutional amendment to ban abortion or taxpayer funding of abortions. That too would be DOA in this legislature but it would be a philisophical statement for you(funny though, your party has pretty much abandoned the anti-abortion movement except on the partial-birth abortion issue which affects a miniscule number of abortions annually.)

The Migden bill is another matter. I should have made that distinction earlier--I think Arnold might sign it if passed. So your arguments against(less persuasive in my mind then against Leno's bill)really aren't simply playing to the base...my apology.

Your $1,000 contribution in the Daucher race probably had as much impact as Mike's $35,000.

[Bladerunner]

Assemblyman, you've been busy posting today.
Are you sure you're not the one with Chris Prevatt's computer?

[DanC]

Like you said Chuck, the data is hard to dispute. And I have dozens of studies that support my contentions as well. I won'; dispute that Rep. Leno is playing to his base; butI'm going to take a wild guess that someone didn't pony up 50 grand for him to push for that legislation.

So again, I ask, how many gay friends do you have?

[clprevatt]

Thanks Bladerunner:

As I was scrolling through this long string of posts I was berginning to think the same thing.

But to Chuck's credit, I'm sure he is posting from his own laptop, even if he is doing so on our dime.

[Jubal]

Dan:

I think you set the record for the longest comment ever posted on this blog. I got carpal tunnel syndrome just from scrolling through it.

[DanC]

And a gracious host you are for letting me post it Matt. Thanks!

Now, did you actually read some of it? Did it cause you to ponder and possibly change your mind a bit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3jk6Bw-fGo

[DanC]

couldn't resist -- this one is hysterical; warning, rated R

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WW6AFu1RF0

[JUbal]

To be candid, I've hardly read any of this comment thread. At this point, I'll have to set aside an afternoon to do so. But I'll try.

[Chuck DeVore]

DanC, I finally slogged through your mammoth post – can’t say I disagree with any of it. Problem is I was aiming my comments and studies about Sen. Migden’s bill that would further dilute marriage by conferring government recognition and benefits on cohabitating heterosexual couples. The studies I cited had nothing to do with same sex couples at all. They had to do with the fact that cohabitating heterosexual couples are far more likely to encounter violence and to divorce if they later marry.

As for the issue of same sex “marriage” as I said, I am opposed to it. I am not opposed to people having the ability to obtain, as you put it, “many legal and financial rights, benefits, and protections” as can be done with powers of attorney or existing domestic partnership laws.

As for campaign finances, why is it so unusual that a candidate would raise funds from supporters in his district who share his beliefs and who would support legislation that lawmaker would introduce? You mention Mr. Leno’s same sex marriage bill and put a price tag of $50,000 to it. Given the large sums of money Mr. Leno raised from his liberal San Francisco constituency, you don’t mean to tell me that he didn’t raise $50,000 or more from people who strongly supported his same sex marriage bill? If not, then I have a bridge to sell you in New York. Your point here is meaningless in the context of politics.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

[DanC]

**As for the issue of same sex “marriage” as I said, I am opposed to it. I am not opposed to people having the ability to obtain, as you put it, “many legal and financial rights, benefits, and protections” as can be done with powers of attorney or existing domestic partnership laws.**

Chuck -- this statement is just contradictory. How can you support DPs and not just call it what it is, marriage?

As for your last portion of your most recent post, you are making huge assumptions that the contributor would support another candidate you would also support. That said, why would I write you a check for your campaign if you're only going to write a check for another candidate in another race. What if I, the contributor, don't care about that race?

It's much better to cut a check directly for candidates; for what's its worth, the DNC called tonight looking for donations. I said I'll be happy to cut a big check once Chairman Dean makes his way to the OC.

As for cohabition: see this site -- http://www.unmarried.org/cohabfaq.php...like I said, for every study you can come up with, I can find one that refutes it.

Did you live with your wife before you got married? I didn't live with mine but we sure spent lots of time together.

from the FAQs:
4. I heard that couples who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce -- is that true?

These studies' conclusions are frequently misrepresented in the media. Basically, studies like these are comparing apples and oranges. Most couples today live together before they marry, and research shows that on average, the minority of couples who marry without living together tend to be more religious, more conservative, and more opposed to divorce, as one would expect. So these studies actually show that people who are more opposed to divorce are less likely to divorce -- which is not particularly surprising. Researchers have found that when you "control" for the differences between the two groups, the cohabitation-divorce link decreases considerably or vanishes entirely, depending on the study. The idea that living together ruins relationships is not supported in any research.

These studies receive a great deal of publicity because conservative groups use them to try to revive "traditional" marriage (with no cohabitation and no sex before marriage). To read some quotes from leading experts who say our analysis is on target, see our page The Experts on Cohabitation.

[DanC]

I need to remember that sarcasm is lost online at times; No, the $50K number is a reference to a query of how big a check do we need to cut for you to get behind this legislation? It was a joke. Let's leave it at that.

[Chuck DeVore]

DanC: I guess you missed today's San Francisco Chroncicle...

With gerrymandered disricts, money is often raised to be given away to others...

Monday, December 4, 2006

Perks of fundraising? - Many Bay Area Assembly members who gave ...

12/04/2006

The Bay Area's members of the state Assembly did more than their share this past election season when it came to raising money for the Democratic Party -- and coincidence or not, they're well-represented among the lawmakers getting choice committee assignments.

Take Assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco. He's chairing the powerful Appropriations Committee when the new legislative session starts today, after having funneled an estimated $400,000 in unused campaign contributions to candidates and causes backed by Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, over the past two years.

[DanC]

You're right, I missed the story. But what makes you think I'm OK with Leno giving money to other Democrats? I'm not. If I cut you a check for your re-election, that's what I cut a check for (it won't happen, but just suppose). If I want to cut a check to support another race, I'd cut a check for that candidate. Raher than view "what's wrong with this?" perhaps you should consider how disrepectful this is to the contributor.

[Bladerunner]

When you give money to a member from essentially a one-party district(like the Hemp Brothers, Devore & Leno)you'd be naive to think the money isn't being exported. As a contributor I am glad the money is being put to use in more competitive areas since this will increase the clout of the member I gave to.

[XXXX]

TylerH, and from the same Wikipedia posting:

Onell R. Soto, a San Diego Union-Tribune writer, wrote in February 2005: "Law enforcement officials and mental health professionals say that while NAMBLA's membership numbers are small, the group has a dangerous ripple effect through the Internet by sanctioning the behavior of those who would abuse children."

So, are you claiming NABLA is fine? They do march in gay rights parades with the slogan, "Sex by eight or it's too late."

Further, you cannot deny that this legislative activity emboldens those who are sympathetic to NAMBLA's agenda.

[Brian Shannon]

“If I cut you a check for your re-election, that's what I cut a check for… perhaps you should consider how disrepectful this is to the contributor”

DanC,

The idea that a legislative candidate has an obligation to spend every cent they collect in their own district even when their election is assured is intellectually disingenuous and politically naïve. Our political system works on the principle of majority rule and, as such, a Republican candidate for office must look beyond him or herself and consider the composition of the legislative body in which they will serve. A Republican legislator will naturally be a more effective advocate for their district if their party is in the majority rather than the minority. Assemblyman DeVore deserves applause for the selfless manner in which he has run his campaigns; always putting his party above his own self-interest. It would have been wasteful and irresponsible for him to blow scarce resources on his own race when his election was already assured. Instead, he worked his darndest to see that Republicans would pick up as many “competitive” seats as possible. The proper target of your vitriol should be our state’s flawed system of reapportionment, which allows legislators to draw themselves “safe” districts, but you are obviously more concerned with bashing Republicans than advocating for real political reform.

On the issue of “gender-neutral marriage”, the issue boils down to one thing: it is illegal under California law (see Prop. 22). If Mr. Leno wants to change that, he should go through the process required by the California Constitution and begin an initiative campaign rather than attempting a legislative runaround the voters’ will.

Respectfully,

Brian Shannon
GOP Hack

[C'mon Chuck]

Assemblymember DeVore,

If you're so concerned about the negative side-effects of couples that cohabitate, shouldn't you support gay marriage? Or do you think it's OK for gay couples to have a shorter life, higher rates of domestic violence and sexual assault, and weaker financial stability?

Incidentally, you still haven't explained how gay marriage weakens the institution of marriage.

[DanC]

Brian --
Thanks for the note; perhaps it is this very policy that will help dry up some of the contributions that collect from Peter to write checks for Paul. And its politically naive of you to think there are competitive districts in California due to the gerrymandering. Mr. DeVore himself has called for redistricting in California State and Assembly races; Daucher-Corerrea is the only one I can think of from this past election cycle. But if you'll recall the special election from last year, the voter's rejected calls for redistricting. How's that for majority rule?

Our system does work on majority rule unless you don't like the outcome - Gray Davis' recall, parental notification for abortions in the special election and Prop 85 this year (what will it be called in the next election cycle?), Bill Clinton's impeachment, Supreme Court intervention in the Florida recount despite your party's "respect for state's rights"..I could go on, but you'd think I'm bashing.

As for Mr. DeVore, I would prefer he put his constituents first and his party second. Until Irvine Unified rises above "last" in state funding for education (around $4500 per student), I'd say our district might be better served by a candidate from the party in the majority.

As far as blowing scare resources, I believe Mr. DeVore went into debt to the tune of $500,000 for his primary race (correct me if I'm wrong here Chuck) which is of course now all paid up through contributions raised because he holds the seat. Sh he's already been irresponsible once. I'm always amused that Mr. DeVore defends his received contributions as freely given be liked-minded thinkers (which I have no doubt is the case) but criticizes donations made to progressive causes or candidates as "shakedowns."

Would a check written to Mr. DeVore with the intent of Mr. DeVore writing a check to another candidate be a simply form of money laundering by the original check writer if the original contributor has already donated the maximum? Hard to say. And I am on record as against this practice by members of my party.

Getting back to the original point of this string, and your identification as a GOP Hack: bad bills with a Gay Marriage bill being among the topic. What are you more upset about? That Mary Cheney is a gay woman having a baby with her long term lesbian partner or that she's having a bastard child out of wedlock because she's not allowed to marry under VA statue? Time to read "Heather Has Two Mommies"

[Chuck DeVore]

DanC, you're blogbusy.

I incurred about $215,000 in debt obligations and spent about $25,000 of my own funds in addition. My main opponent loaned and spent far more of her own money in the contest.

Regarding Mr. Agran and allies, donations from non-ideological developers with land use decisions pending are what I've always questioned.

As for children, I think they do best with a mother and a father. Having children should not be something you do for yourself.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

[DanC]

Thanks for the correct numbers. Even more impressive was that you were able to raise so much money so quickly.

How do you know if the developers contributing to Agran and allies are non-idealogical? Psychic powers?

I go back to the El Morro donation and the bill you posted to help those people. I'm sure they support your political views and you were trying to save the state's park system money, but c'mon..no one to the center-left is buying it.

Children do better with parents who love them and parents who are involved in their lives. Doesn't matter if its two moms, two dads, a mom and step dad, a dad and step mom. Scroll up for the study I posted.