New Mexico becomes the 17th US State to legalize same-sex marriage.

[Bob Hubbard]

The New Mexico Supreme Court in a unanimous decision today legalized same sex marriage, citing the State Constitution's "Equal Protection Clause". This makes New Mexico the 17th US State to legalize Same Sex marriage.

For reference here is that clause:

Sec. 18. [Due process; equal protection;sex discrimination.]
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws. Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person. (As amended November 7, 1972, effective July 1, 1973).

Also for comparison, here is the United States Constitution's own "Equal Protection" clause, found in the text of the 14th Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

hmmmm.

The unanimous ruling ordered county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to qualified same-sex couples. "Barring individuals from marrying and depriving them of the rights, protections, and responsibilities of civil marriage solely because of their sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause," of the state's constitution," said the 31-page ruling from all five state justices.
"We hold that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections, and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law,” the ruling said.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...me-sex-couples-have-right-to-marry/?hpt=us_c2


The dominoes are falling......

 

[ballen0351]

Of the 17 how many were voted on by the people and how many were done by court order? I have no issue with a state making it legal if its what the people want. I do not like a state court deciding for the people. Maryland voted and approved Gay marriage I have no problem with that but 5, 7, or 9 judges shouldnt speak for millions

 

[elder999]

Of the 17 how many were voted on by the people and how many were done by court order? I have no issue with a state making it legal if its what the people want. I do not like a state court deciding for the people. Maryland voted and approved Gay marriage I have no problem with that but 5, 7, or 9 judges shouldnt speak for millions

You may not "like it," but that's, like, the very definition of the word judge.....just sayin'

 

[granfire]

Of the 17 how many were voted on by the people and how many were done by court order? I have no issue with a state making it legal if its what the people want. I do not like a state court deciding for the people. Maryland voted and approved Gay marriage I have no problem with that but 5, 7, or 9 judges shouldnt speak for millions

doesn't matter.

like other things that are right but not popular. Sometimes the big wigs need to earn their keep.

 

[ballen0351]

Its all fun and game until they "JUDGE" to detain hundreds of thousands of American citizens of Japanese decent but whatever floats your boat

 

[ballen0351]

You may not "like it," but that's, like, the very definition of the word judge.....just sayin'

Judges are not supposed to create laws only judge laws on the books. If there is no law regarding gay marriage then people for it need to get a law passed.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

In this case, the judges didn't create a law. They ruled that an existing law was being enforced unequally.

My take on this is that -this- ruling will be the one that is cited in the eventual USSC case given the verbiage is the same in both the state and national constitutions.

This is the same law that allows me to remain in the 'married' category regardless of which state I am in.

Maine btw was the one where the general public voted for it. Maryland was passed as a law, and the law upheld by the voters. So 2 out of 17 were by public vote.
6 were by court decision.
The rest were legislature decisions where the elected representatives made the call.

Personally, I'd prefer these things to go by popular vote, but in some cases the popular choice isn't the right choice. Case in point, integration was not popular in the South in the 60's and if it had been left up to the general populace we'd still see those "whites only" signs there.



In Garden State Equality v. Dow, the State of New Jersey lost it's case when the NJ Supreme Court ruled "that the parallel legal structures created by the New Jersey Legislature therefore no longer provide same sex couples with equal access to the rights and benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples, violating the mandate of Lewis and the New Jersey Constitution's equal protection guarantee."

same wording.

In looking at the cases decided by court decision, they are not creating a new law, but looking at the existing law of "Equality" and correcting an inequality.

At this point 1/3 of US States allow same-sex marriage. 2/3 do not. We have a state of inequality. A same sex couple, legally married in NY, NJ or NM can move between those states and be accepted as married. Should they go to TX, AZ or OH however, they are not. This is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection Clause" as well as USC Article IV, Section 1:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

My marriage is recorded in NY. If I move to TX, TX will recognize it as per their own state constitution which differs to the federal constitution which clearly says it's to be recognized.

Eventually, this will become case law and there will be many many unhappy people.

 

[ballen0351]

Like I said in another thread. When a minority attempts to bully the majority the minority better be prepared for push back. In this case legislature or popular vote is the only way to go. You pass it by votes they way laws are supposed to be passed people at least get to have their say and the chips fall where they may. You let a few judges decide the fight will keep raging on and on and people will get more upset. Not even about the topic anymore but by the process itself

For example here in MD we voted it passed by like 52% or so. You dont hear anything about it anymore. Had the courts done it they would still be fighting it

 

[granfire]

Like I said in another thread. When a minority attempts to bully the majority the minority better be prepared for push back. In this case legislature or popular vote is the only way to go. You pass it by votes they way laws are supposed to be passed people at least get to have their say and the chips fall where they may. You let a few judges decide the fight will keep raging on and on and people will get more upset. Not even about the topic anymore but by the process itself

For example here in MD we voted it passed by like 52% or so. You dont hear anything about it anymore. Had the courts done it they would still be fighting it

you skipped over the thing with desegregation...
or womens right to vote....neither particular popular....(considering that Wyoming was nearly denied statehood, because they would not eliminate women's voting rights...)

 

[ballen0351]

you skipped over the thing with desegregation...
or womens right to vote....neither particular popular....(considering that Wyoming was nearly denied statehood, because they would not eliminate women's voting rights...)

I didn'tskip anything. Being a woman and being black is not like being gay #1 and #2 both of which wwould have happened on their own in due time. Had they allowed it to occur naturally I'm positive it would have occurred with much less violence. It may have taken an extra few years but lives would have been spared

 

[granfire]

I didn'tskip anything. Being a woman and being black is not like being gay #1 and #2 both of which wwould have happened on their own in due time. Had they allowed it to occur naturally I'm positive it would have occurred with much less violence. It may have taken an extra few years but lives would have been spared

You are from up North, Sweet.
We'd still have the 'Whites Only fountains!
It was not too long ago, Alabama but it up for a vote: Should the prohibition on mixed marriages be stricken from the books....
The majority did not vote to eliminate this law.

You hve to crack a few eggs to make an omlette.
Allowing a minority the same rights as the majority is hardly dictatorship.
Unlike equal schooling and access to public facilities one does not have to get married, nor be gay.
But there is no reason to not allow homosexuals to marry.
it does not affect you if they do, same as it does not affect you if black and white people get married! Or White people, Or purple ones.

Marriage is a business contract. It never was anything else. It never was about love, only about economical regulations. And as such it is unfathomable to deny this form of contract to part of the population.

 

[ballen0351]

You are from up North, Sweet.
We'd still have the 'Whites Only fountains!
It was not too long ago, Alabama but it up for a vote: Should the prohibition on mixed marriages be stricken from the books....
The majority did not vote to eliminate this law.

You hve to crack a few eggs to make an omlette.
Allowing a minority the same rights as the majority is hardly dictatorship.
Unlike equal schooling and access to public facilities one does not have to get married, nor be gay.
But there is no reason to not allow homosexuals to marry.
it does not affect you if they do, same as it does not affect you if black and white people get married! Or White people, Or purple ones.

Marriage is a business contract. It never was anything else. It never was about love, only about economical regulations. And as such it is unfathomable to deny this form of contract to part of the population.

No you don't its already started my state voted by popular vote to approve Gay Marriage. And there is almost zero chatter anymore in opposition. When the legislature passed it first the opposition was extremely vocal and got it on the ballet. Once they lost by popular vote they gave up and moved on. Sometimes all people want is a change to voice their opinion. I'm positive if left to the people to decide in 10 years or less almost all states would pass it on their own.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

NY passed it by legislature, not vote. I don't hear any grumbling either.

You're right, given enough time it would phase in, but during that time, how many people will be denied the right, and as a result lose the 1,000+ benefits that come with it? How many loving couples would face financial ruin, how many survivors will lose access to their kids, homes and belongings? etc.

 

[ballen0351]

NY passed it by legislature, not vote. I don't hear any grumbling either.

You're right, given enough time it would phase in, but during that time, how many people will be denied the right, and as a result lose the 1,000+ benefits that come with it? How many loving couples would face financial ruin, how many survivors will lose access to their kids, homes and belongings? etc.

Better then the alternative. Pushing it too soon on people and having backlash either through violence or legislation.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

While I don't like the violence, I'm unaware of massive gay witch hunts and murder spree's occuring as a result of these states recognizing equal rights. I think most people are bored of it all at this point. I think the next several states moving to the 21st century will be non-events met with a ho-hum, until we get down to the last few when it'll become a running gag: Which US State will be the last to grow up?

I predict it will be Utah, Texas, Arkansas or Louisiana.

 

[granfire]

Better then the alternative. Pushing it too soon on people and having backlash either through violence or legislation.

You only have a huge backlash with violence if the climate allows people to behave badly, you know like the civil rights situation in the 60s, the peers not convicting the accused of the obvious crimes....

You don't get to violate your fellow man because you feel like it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

[h=3]Polling - Wikipedia[/h] Polling in states that have legalized same-sex marriage has shown that a majority of respondents generally agree the legalization of same sex marriage has had no effect on them.
A survey done by Public Policy Polling of 1,539 registered Massachusetts voters in May 2013 found that 60% of respondents claimed the legalization of same-sex marriage had "no impact" on their personal lives, with an additional 25% citing a "positive impact". Only 15% of respondents claimed the legalization of same-sex marriage had a "negative impact" on their personal lives.[SUP][196][/SUP]
A survey done by Public Policy Polling of 668 registered Iowa voters in July 2013 found that 63% of respondents claimed the legalization of same-sex marriage had "no impact" on their personal lives, with an additional 11% citing a "positive impact". The 26% citing a "negative impact" was driven by "very conservative" voters, of whom 70% said the legalization of same-sex marriage had a "negative impact". All other political ideologies agreed the legalization of same-sex marriage has had no impact on their personal lives.[SUP][197][/SUP]
A survey done by Public Policy Polling of 953 registered Maine voters in August 2013 found that 62% of respondents claimed the legalization of same-sex marriage had "no impact" on their personal lives, with an additional 18% citing a "positive impact". Only 20% of respondents claimed the legalization of same-sex marriage had a "negative impact" on their personal lives.[SUP][198][/SUP]

 

[ballen0351]

You only have a huge backlash with violence if the climate allows people to behave badly, you know like the civil rights situation in the 60s, the peers not convicting the accused of the obvious crimes....

You don't get to violate your fellow man because you feel like it.

So people are civilized enough not to get violent but not civilized enough to pass it eventually. Violence isn't really my concern but I could see pushing it too far to fast and I could see Constitutional changes banning it all together. Just from spite. I could care less about gays getting married my opposition comes from it being rammed down peoples throats with no say. A hand full of judges making fundamental changes to society and people not getting a say in the matter.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Polls in 2013

A September Quinnipiac University poll found that 56% of American adults and 57% of registered voters supported same-sex marriage. Only 36% of both groups were opposed.[SUP][13][/SUP]
A July 10–14 poll by Gallup found support for gay marriage at 54%, a record high, and double the support of 27% Gallup first measured when the question was asked in 1996.[SUP][14][/SUP]
A July poll by USA Today found that 55% of Americans supported gay marriage while 40% did not.[SUP][15][/SUP]
A May 9 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 55% of Americans supported gay marriage while 40% did not.[SUP][16][/SUP]
A March 20–24 CBS News Poll found that 53% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, 39% opposed it, and 8% were undecided.[SUP][17][/SUP] The same poll also found that 33% of Americans who thought same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry said they once held the opposite view and had changed their opinion.
A March 7–10 Washington Post-ABC News[SUP][18][/SUP] poll found that 58% of Americans support same-sex marriage while 36% opposed. The poll indicated that 52% of GOP-leaning independents under 50 years old supported gay marriage.[SUP][19][/SUP]
A March Quinnipiac University poll of voters found 47% supported same-sex marriage and 43% were opposed.[SUP][20][/SUP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

 

[ballen0351]

[h=3]Polls in 2013[/h] A September Quinnipiac University poll found that 56% of American adults and 57% of registered voters supported same-sex marriage. Only 36% of both groups were opposed.[SUP][13][/SUP]
A July 10–14 poll by Gallup found support for gay marriage at 54%, a record high, and double the support of 27% Gallup first measured when the question was asked in 1996.[SUP][14][/SUP]
A July poll by USA Today found that 55% of Americans supported gay marriage while 40% did not.[SUP][15][/SUP]
A May 9 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 55% of Americans supported gay marriage while 40% did not.[SUP][16][/SUP]
A March 20–24 CBS News Poll found that 53% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, 39% opposed it, and 8% were undecided.[SUP][17][/SUP] The same poll also found that 33% of Americans who thought same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry said they once held the opposite view and had changed their opinion.
A March 7–10 Washington Post-ABC News[SUP][18][/SUP] poll found that 58% of Americans support same-sex marriage while 36% opposed. The poll indicated that 52% of GOP-leaning independents under 50 years old supported gay marriage.[SUP][19][/SUP]
A March Quinnipiac University poll of voters found 47% supported same-sex marriage and 43% were opposed.[SUP][20][/SUP]

Right like I said so do it the right way let people vote it in end all the arguments.