Gay marriage dispute pending in New M...

Gay marriage dispute pending in New Mexico

There are 350 comments on the KOB-TV New Mexico story from Jun 6, 2013, titled Gay marriage dispute pending in New Mexico. In it, KOB-TV New Mexico reports that:

Attorney General Gary King plans to talk about a simmering dispute over whether same-sex marriage is legal in New Mexico.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KOB-TV New Mexico.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#307 Jul 5, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. Russian in thinking.
And Lysenkoist, at that!
Sam Harris is Russian?

Or did you not know that relative morality is on its way out, even by atheists standards?

:)

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#308 Jul 5, 2013
that's right it is up to government to mold us and regulate us. it is a god-given right. and they are great arbiters of morality. and what they give they can take away.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#309 Jul 5, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Right! Society is people, a collection of sovereign individuals exercising their freedom of assembly to assert control over and regulate governments governments and laws.
Society IS the people, you crazy person. You sit there and talk about people's sovereignty and then turn around and call the people an artificial construct.
Wow.
And no, the SOCIAL CONTRACT theory is not at all a de facto reality. Nor is it critical or necessary for a Constitutional Republic. The social contract is a concept more often used by Communists to justify their position than ever it was the Founders.
You really have no clue what the heck you are talking about.
So, once again. If people have SOVEREIGHTY, then that MEANS they have the absolute authority to create, maintain, or disband ANY ORGANIZATION WHATSOEVER, including the US Constitution itself.
That is what sovereignty means. Therefore, their power to regulate marriage is beyond question. Prop8 by YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS should have been upheld.
Once again, your hypocrisy is astounding.
Nope.

A central and fundamental component of the Constitutional contract is that the sovereign people exercise that sovereignty through elected representatives, and subject to the adjudication of an independent judiciary whose loyalty is to the Contract, to justice, and to the individual.

The purpose behind these was specifically stated to be as a check upon the majority's tendency to oppress the minority.

Checks and balances.

For those who don't remember their basic History and Government coursework, a related discussion ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_g...

-------

Yep. You still think like a Russian.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#310 Jul 5, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
A central and fundamental component of the Constitutional contract is that the sovereign people exercise that sovereignty through elected representatives, and subject to the adjudication of an independent judiciary whose loyalty is to the Contract, to justice, and to the individual.
The purpose behind these was specifically stated to be as a check upon the majority's tendency to oppress the minority.
Checks and balances.
For those who don't remember their basic History and Government coursework, a related discussion ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_g...
-------
Yep. You still think like a Russian.
Nope what?

Any government can claim a social contract exists and abuse it.

And all of this has nothing to do with the fact that all unions are regulated by the people, including marriage.

So, what is your point? You again talk about the sovereignty of the people and contracts, but DENY the people the right to exercise that sovereighty by regulating and defining marriage, as was done by Prop8

You are going around in circles.

The Supreme Court agrees with US BOTH!

"In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government. The California initiative process embodies these principles and has done so for over a century...."

Thus, the right to make laws, such as Prop8, is denied, and the sovereignty of the people ignored.

You STILL have not answered for your hypocrisy.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#311 Jul 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Then if marriage is not a civil right, it is not protected by equality ... dimwit.
Marriage has already been held to be a fundamental right by the US Supreme Court. Not only that, they have done so on 14 separate occasions.
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...
“One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”-West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Equal protection under the law is based on RIGHTS. It does not apply to things like drivers licenses, social security (you have to contribute to the system to get money back), welfare (you have to qualify by being poor), and any number of benefits that have NOTHING TO DO WITH EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW.
Actually, it does. Unless there is a compelling state interest served by denying such licenses, equal protection still applies.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
And society determines what a compelling interests is, and that has been well established. Children, and the future of society, is what the State has every right to issue benefits for. Even Progressives and Liberals of the past called family the backbone of civilization, and recognized that they should receive special benefit and honor for being husband and wife and having children, and educating them ... thus the reason for marriage benefits.
How dumb can you be? Children or child rearing are not compelling state interests to deny the right to legal marriage. Infertile heterosexual couples are regularly allowed to marry, and married couples with children are regularly allowed to divorce.
You seem to have a disconnect with reality.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
We have every right to determine such benefits. Period. The right of any free society to determine HOW THEIR TAXES ARE SPENT ON PUBLIC PROGRAMS is essential to maintaining said free society.
Dear moron. You don’t get to vote on fundamental rights.
See above: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
But evidently, you don't believe in a free society to regulate unions of any kind, or how tax money should be spent on social programs, or spent on benefits.
Of course, unions can be regulated, but if they wish to deny equal protection, they may only do so where a compelling state interest is involved
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
BY your insane logic, the rich should be entitled along with the poor to benefits. By your insane logic, the blind should be allowed to drive. All in the name of equality.
Wow, you are an idiot. That is not what I have said at all. If that is what you have inferred, you are insane.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#312 Jul 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text> ... So, what is your point? You again talk about the sovereignty of the people and contracts, but DENY the people the right to exercise that sovereighty by regulating and defining marriage, as was done by Prop8
You are going around in circles.
The Supreme Court agrees with US BOTH!
"In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government. The California initiative process embodies these principles and has done so for over a century...."
Thus, the right to make laws, such as Prop8, is denied, and the sovereignty of the people ignored.
You STILL have not answered for your hypocrisy.
I DO deny the people the authority to abrogate the primary principles of Contract.

There has always been a debate about the Initiative process, because it is not inherent in the republican representative democracy established in the contract. Californians created it for themselves rather specifically as a means of deconstructing entrenched and codified racism and discrimination in the California government, much as the Nation as a whole lowered the voting age to 18 specifically to get us out of VietNam and dislodge elements that had become prevalent in the Federal structure.

Rights are not something that should ever be Referenda, nor their limitation anywhere in proximity to the Initiative process. Honestly, the electorate lacks the moral and legal sophistication for such decisions.

All opinions are not created equal, or you would have your neighbor's kid do your brain surgery.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#313 Jul 6, 2013
snyper wrote:
All opinions are not created equal, or you would have your neighbor's kid do your brain surgery.
I think they may have done so, which would explain a great deal.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#314 Jul 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
....
Thus, the right to make laws, such as Prop8, is denied, and the sovereignty of the people ignored.
You STILL have not answered for your hypocrisy.
So you believe that a majority of said sovereign people must always have the right to vote away basic civil and human rights from a minority within that sovereign people, without any valid public or state interest.

And you believe the group of sovereign people that is directly harmed by that vote should have no redress within the legislature or through the courts?

What country do YOU live in?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#315 Jul 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I think they may have done so, which would explain a great deal.
Micro surgery is hard.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#316 Jul 6, 2013
That is one of the reasons for the Bill of Rights. To protect the minority. First Amendment: Even protects what some posters call Cults. Protects the protests against the War. Allows people a soap box. It is also to protect the people from the government. We can give some credit to the Anti-Federalists for that.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#317 Jul 6, 2013
RalphB wrote:
Micro surgery is hard.
Judging from the irrationality of the user, I would say the surgery was not in any way micro, and might, in fact, redefine macro surgery.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#318 Jul 11, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I DO deny the people the authority to abrogate the primary principles of Contract.
There has always been a debate about the Initiative process, because it is not inherent in the republican representative democracy established in the contract. Californians created it for themselves rather specifically as a means of deconstructing entrenched and codified racism and discrimination in the California government, much as the Nation as a whole lowered the voting age to 18 specifically to get us out of VietNam and dislodge elements that had become prevalent in the Federal structure.
Rights are not something that should ever be Referenda, nor their limitation anywhere in proximity to the Initiative process. Honestly, the electorate lacks the moral and legal sophistication for such decisions.
All opinions are not created equal, or you would have your neighbor's kid do your brain surgery.
The social contract does not exist as a legal concept. It is a theory, and has no bearing whatsoever.

There are, however, government contracts. That is to say, government is contracted by the people to serve them. But since no politicians are being sued for breach of contract ... that to is not enforced.

So you are full of shit.

Moral and legal SOPHISTICATION?????

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!

So, you mean the Catholic Church is right after all as a moral authority since the "electorate" are not qualified????

LOL!!!!!!!!!

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#319 Jul 11, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
So you believe that a majority of said sovereign people must always have the right to vote away basic civil and human rights from a minority within that sovereign people, without any valid public or state interest.
And you believe the group of sovereign people that is directly harmed by that vote should have no redress within the legislature or through the courts?
What country do YOU live in?
Of course.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

The power to create good and just laws is the SAME power to repeal such laws and bring anarchy.

That is the risk of a free society. You have no assurances of stability. Humans are not predictable, or manageable, and can become very creative and loving, or very brutal and evil.

Welcome to evolution and natural selection.

Good grief, do you REALIZE that this is the same question the Nazis asked, as well as any other sick and frightened dictatorship afraid to let people be free?????? You DO realize that most of the oppression in the WORLD is due to people that think like you, right?

Wow.

And no one was harmed by Prop 8. No one has a right to marriage, or corporations, or any membership to any other club.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#320 Jul 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has already been held to be a fundamental right by the US Supreme Court. Not only that, they have done so on 14 separate occasions.
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...
“One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”-West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
<quoted text>
Actually, it does. Unless there is a compelling state interest served by denying such licenses, equal protection still applies.
<quoted text>
How dumb can you be? Children or child rearing are not compelling state interests to deny the right to legal marriage. Infertile heterosexual couples are regularly allowed to marry, and married couples with children are regularly allowed to divorce.
You seem to have a disconnect with reality.
<quoted text>
Dear moron. You don’t get to vote on fundamental rights.
See above: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
<quoted text>
Of course, unions can be regulated, but if they wish to deny equal protection, they may only do so where a compelling state interest is involved
<quoted text>
Wow, you are an idiot. That is not what I have said at all. If that is what you have inferred, you are insane.
No it hasn't.

Procreation was held to be fundamental right. I've examined the Court proceeding more closely. Since denying procreation to people of different races was what was ACTUALLY at stake, that is what was being discussed.

You people have been twisting the meaning this whole time, you sorry, dishonest, fools.

All civil right struggles were attempts to actual ENFORCE what the USC already made clear. Equality under the law, no exception.

Marriage and corporations, and friendships, have NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

Besides, I'm not accepting arguments by authority today. The Supreme Court ALSO has made some VERY bad rulings in the past, which has to be overturned.

So the Supreme Court is NEVER a valid excuse to hold your personal, misguided, and bigoted beliefs about traditional marriage.

Try again.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#321 Jul 11, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
That is one of the reasons for the Bill of Rights. To protect the minority. First Amendment: Even protects what some posters call Cults. Protects the protests against the War. Allows people a soap box. It is also to protect the people from the government. We can give some credit to the Anti-Federalists for that.
No, Willow.

The Bill of Rights was written to protect EVERYONE equally ... not just a minority.

Everyone.

Period.

Once one group of people is given special rights as a protected class, you just destroyed equality under the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

Protect people from government? You mean like California not enforcing Prop 8 and becoming lawless bandits against the will of the people????

LOL!
yet

Santa Fe, NM

#322 Jul 11, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>

You DO realize that most of the oppression in the WORLD is due to people that think like you, right?

.
another bizzarro assertion.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#323 Jul 11, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Willow.
The Bill of Rights was written to protect EVERYONE equally ... not just a minority.
Everyone.
Period.
Once one group of people is given special rights as a protected class, you just destroyed equality under the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans
Protect people from government? You mean like California not enforcing Prop 8 and becoming lawless bandits against the will of the people????
LOL!
Then Religious Exceptionalism must fail, no?

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#324 Jul 12, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Willow.
The Bill of Rights was written to protect EVERYONE equally ... not just a minority.
Everyone.
Period.
Once one group of people is given special rights as a protected class, you just destroyed equality under the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans
Protect people from government? You mean like California not enforcing Prop 8 and becoming lawless bandits against the will of the people????
LOL!
great taking things out of context. you were the one who decried a minority bullying the people and the courts. those Bill of Rights protect the individual. not the majority you keep harping about. you want the majority in Prop 8 to rule over a minority even though it may not be Constitutional. let them eat cake.

Your code..."against the will of the people"...nice. You mean majority that happen to vote. Nice try. And thanks for a wiki cite. Don't think you would recognize a republic if you saw one.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#325 Jul 12, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
No it hasn't.
Procreation was held to be fundamental right. I've examined the Court proceeding more closely. Since denying procreation to people of different races was what was ACTUALLY at stake, that is what was being discussed.
What are you talking about? Cite cases.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
You people have been twisting the meaning this whole time, you sorry, dishonest, fools.
Short, but pointless.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
All civil right struggles were attempts to actual ENFORCE what the USC already made clear. Equality under the law, no exception.
Marriage and corporations, and friendships, have NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
As is the case here. Unless you can indicate a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, such a restriction remains unconstitutional, and you remain stupid.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Besides, I'm not accepting arguments by authority today. The Supreme Court ALSO has made some VERY bad rulings in the past, which has to be overturned.
Your approval is not required for the US Supreme Court to be the final word of law in this country.
My, but you do suffer from delusions of grandeur.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
So the Supreme Court is NEVER a valid excuse to hold your personal, misguided, and bigoted beliefs about traditional marriage.
Try again.
Dear moron, the US Supreme Court has already held that:
"What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconsti- tutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person pro- tected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. See Bolling, 347 U. S., at 499–500; Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pen&#771;a, 515 U. S. 200, 217–218 (1995). While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amend- ment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved."
Your personal dissent is irrelevant as a matter of law.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#326 Jul 12, 2013
And as Prop 8 is a state law it needs to be defended by the Legislature. It was not.

"The U.S. Supreme Court finally ended this years-long effort that stood in the way of equal marriage rights. Unlike elected representatives, the court held that initiative proponents do not have standing to defend Proposition 8 in federal court. This is because they “are not subject to the control of any principal, and they owe no fiduciary obligation to anyone.” Instead, they claimed to have what one amicus brief described as “an unelected appointment for an unspecified period of time as defenders of the initiative, however and to whatever extent they choose to defend it.” If that were the rule, the dysfunctional problems that the initiative process has already visited upon the state would be that much worse."

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jul/11/tp...

Seems that a lot of people use the term democracy interchangeably.

"While the Supreme Court’s decision places a reasonable break on initiative proponents, much more is needed to right our system. Initiatives should not be placed on the ballot in the absence of any legislative deliberative process. The default rule should be that the Legislature can amend initiative statutes, at least after a modest waiting period, and changes to the state constitution (except to repeal or amend existing initiatives) should require a substantial supermajority. Initiatives should not be placed on the ballot in off-year elections when turnout is especially low, and courts should give careful scrutiny to any initiative that, like Proposition 8 — and a disheartening number of other direct democracy measures — impose unique barriers on minorities."

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Jul/11/tp...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Placitas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
People Leaving Albuquerque In National Ranking 6 hr Juanita 13
Today I Saw (Nov '09) 7 hr Juanita 58,365
Good Old Days 2 (Apr '10) 12 hr new parrot 109,048
cyfd sucks!!! (Apr '10) 12 hr Shquan 193
News Tempers flare over proposed food stamps changes 22 hr Lorette 48
News Belen residents balk at websitea s slam on city 22 hr Number One 1
News APD arrests suspects accused of setting homeles... 22 hr Linda 23
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Placitas Mortgages