Gay marriage dispute pending in New Mexico

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: KOB-TV New Mexico 350

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

Read more
First Prev
of 18
Next Last

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#1 Jun 6, 2013
This should be amusing, and will certainly play into his bid for Governor next year. Bye bye GK!

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#2 Jun 6, 2013
This is a cop-out by King......New Mexico has NO STATURE for or against the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#4 Jun 6, 2013
Pepper wrote:
<quoted text>
They're just using common sense.
No, they're not......if there is NOTHING saying that marriage is strictly between an opposite-sex couple.....then they are violating the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples.......and they know!!!

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#5 Jun 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they're not......if there is NOTHING saying that marriage is strictly between an opposite-sex couple.....then they are violating the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples.......and they know!!!
That is not correct. We don't have a law for every possible bad thing people do. Many nations have no laws against incest, either, because people know better ... or should. Society makes laws as necessary over time.

Not in thousands of years have same-sex couples ever TRIED, or WANTED to get married. So this is something entirely new, and now the whole world has to deal with the whining of same-sex couples wanting to be recognized as something they are not.

You need a license to get married. So it's not a rights issue. Marriage has never been a "right" anywhere on earth, always a privilege.
Yawn

Santa Fe, NM

#6 Jun 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>

.
the rock moved and look what emerged.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#7 Jun 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Not in thousands of years have same-sex couples ever TRIED, or WANTED to get married. So this is something entirely new, and now the whole world has to deal with the whining of same-sex couples wanting to be recognized as something they are not.
You need a license to get married. So it's not a rights issue. Marriage has never been a "right" anywhere on earth, always a privilege.
Actually Same-Sex Couples have gotten married in the early centuries like the 11th, 12 and 13th and in the 600 BC.......and it is a fundamental right!!!

Sorry, but according to SCOTUS....Marriage has been a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT for over 200 years!!!

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#8 Jun 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Same-Sex Couples have gotten married in the early centuries like the 11th, 12 and 13th and in the 600 BC.......and it is a fundamental right!!!
Sorry, but according to SCOTUS....Marriage has been a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT for over 200 years!!!
And are you speaking of this?

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Well, he is wrong. Marriage is NOT required for our fundamental existence, there are many cultures that did not have it at all, such as ancient Egypt, that developed just fine.

If I could, I would ask the justice how in the world one had the right to make someone marry them. Marriage depends on the privilege of free choice from another person, therefore, it cannot be a right by logic alone.

I have no right to force someone to marry me, Therefore, it cannot be a right. Justice Earl Warren is an idiot. You need a license to get married, that alone refutes the Supreme Court. You need permission from another person to marry, that ALSO refutes the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not infallable, as it has made MANY ERRORS in the past, that have had to be overturned.

So, unless you can provide a RATIONAL argument, Argument by Authority is not valid.

Also, what historical reference do you have? Please provide sources.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#9 Jun 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not correct. We don't have a law for every possible bad thing people do. Many nations have no laws against incest, either, because people know better ... or should. Society makes laws as necessary over time.
Not in thousands of years have same-sex couples ever TRIED, or WANTED to get married. So this is something entirely new, and now the whole world has to deal with the whining of same-sex couples wanting to be recognized as something they are not.
You need a license to get married. So it's not a rights issue. Marriage has never been a "right" anywhere on earth, always a privilege.
The purpose of the licenses was never really to grant "permission", but to facilitate registry in order to create records for other legal issues; especially transfers of property.

Consult New Mexico legal history about Common Law Marriage. The move towards Licensed Marriage was to address some of the obvious problems resulting from the far more ancient historical practice among non-nobility.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#10 Jun 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Same-Sex Couples have gotten married in the early centuries like the 11th, 12 and 13th and in the 600 BC.......and it is a fundamental right!!!
Sorry, but according to SCOTUS....Marriage has been a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT for over 200 years!!!
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Mmmmm, the way this is worded, the justice was clearly thinking of a union between MAN and WOMAN, since PROCREATION is necessary for the very existence and survival.

But marriage itself is clearly not.

It would not be the first time a justice worded something poorly, if that is what he meant.
and

Santa Fe, NM

#11 Jun 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>

I have no right to force someone to marry me, Therefore, it cannot be a right.
.
you think this isn't an absurd statement? LOL

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#12 Jun 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
And are you speaking of this?
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Well, he is wrong. Marriage is NOT required for our fundamental existence, there are many cultures that did not have it at all, such as ancient Egypt, that developed just fine.
If I could, I would ask the justice how in the world one had the right to make someone marry them. Marriage depends on the privilege of free choice from another person, therefore, it cannot be a right by logic alone.
I have no right to force someone to marry me, Therefore, it cannot be a right. Justice Earl Warren is an idiot. You need a license to get married, that alone refutes the Supreme Court. You need permission from another person to marry, that ALSO refutes the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not infallable, as it has made MANY ERRORS in the past, that have had to be overturned.
So, unless you can provide a RATIONAL argument, Argument by Authority is not valid.
Also, what historical reference do you have? Please provide sources.
A right DOESN'T mean "FORCED"........the other party has the right to DENY or simply say NO.......and a marriage license is ISSUED by the State, therefore it is NOT a privilege that only some can participate in!!!

You seriously have a flaw in your thought process......arguments have already been given and we shall hear from SCOTUS in roughly 24 days or less......and SCOTUS may be fallible, but they have the final say on what is Constitutional and their ruling can be overturned, but ONLY by them in another case!!!

Marriage is a right and any two individuals should have the right to make that decision without regard to gender specifics!!!

As for your request for the link......it's been provide many times in the last 5 years.......you can do the research yourself!!!

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#13 Jun 6, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The purpose of the licenses was never really to grant "permission", but to facilitate registry in order to create records for other legal issues; especially transfers of property.
Consult New Mexico legal history about Common Law Marriage. The move towards Licensed Marriage was to address some of the obvious problems resulting from the far more ancient historical practice among non-nobility.
Well, if you can prove that legally, great. But permission to get married has existed in most cultures. If not by government, then by church, or family, or AT THE VERY LEAST, the SPOUSE.

And yes, you DO have to have permission from your desired future spouse, so you are wrong on all counts. And the laws of the world reflect this.

New Mexico does not have common law marriage.

Care to explain more you position?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#14 Jun 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
A right DOESN'T mean "FORCED"........the other party has the right to DENY or simply say NO.......and a marriage license is ISSUED by the State, therefore it is NOT a privilege that only some can participate in!!!
You seriously have a flaw in your thought process......arguments have already been given and we shall hear from SCOTUS in roughly 24 days or less......and SCOTUS may be fallible, but they have the final say on what is Constitutional and their ruling can be overturned, but ONLY by them in another case!!!
Marriage is a right and any two individuals should have the right to make that decision without regard to gender specifics!!!
As for your request for the link......it's been provide many times in the last 5 years.......you can do the research yourself!!!
Yes it does.

You have a right to life? Then that means you have the right to use FORCE to defend it. You have a right to liberty? That means if someone holds you against your will, you may use FORCE to escape. Rights ABSOLUTLEY mean the legitimate use of force by either you, OR THE STATE, to defend such right.

A privilege is something free given, or exchanged upon condition, such as living in a society. If you want to live in a society, you have social obligations and responsibilities. You have the RIGHT to leave that society and live elsewhere. You do NOT have the right to force your way into society, or demand that they protect you. If you want protection, then you must pay TAXES, and service in the MILITARY, or defend your community.

Yes, it IS priviledge that one some may participate and receive a LICENSE.

The blind cannot drive a car.

Criminals cannot own guns.

Therefore, the State's prerogative to issue licenses for marriage is perfectly reasonable and logical. Society's absolute authority on such unions on marriage is self-evident ... no polygamy, no incest marriage, etc.

Thus, the license.

No one has the final say on anything. Even if the Supreme Court errors in their judgement, it changes nothing whatsoever.

Why? Because I could not make my current wife marry me. Nor can I prevent her from divorcing me. Therefore, by LOGIC ALONE, it cannot be a right. No government, no society, no amount of argument can change that basic fact.

Unless, of course, you want a world in which marriages are arranged and people forced to get married?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#15 Jun 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Same-Sex Couples have gotten married in the early centuries like the 11th, 12 and 13th and in the 600 BC.......and it is a fundamental right!!!
Sorry, but according to SCOTUS....Marriage has been a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT for over 200 years!!!
This thread has not been open for years.

If you make a claim, provide the evidence.

Otherwise, I have no reason to accept it.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#16 Jun 6, 2013
While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-...

Almost no evidence of same-sex marriage. We know that homosexuality has existed since the beginning, but wide-spread acceptance of same-sex marriage? Nope.

The very word marriage itself means "state of motherhood." and is tied by language to procreation and women. The evolution of language reflects historical thinking as any language expert can tell you.

So, NorCal Native, are you trying to make a false argument to bully others into accepting your world view?
Another

Santa Fe, NM

#17 Jun 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
The very word marriage itself means "state of motherhood." and is tied by language to procreation and women. The evolution of language reflects historical thinking as any language expert can tell you.

?
absurd statement. Etymology is destiny and determines civil rights.
you are

Santa Fe, NM

#18 Jun 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
to bully others into accepting your world view?
the bully trying to force your outmoded world view on an evolving culture.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#19 Jun 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it does.
You have a right to life? Then that means you have the right to use FORCE to defend it. You have a right to liberty? That means if someone holds you against your will, you may use FORCE to escape. Rights ABSOLUTLEY mean the legitimate use of force by either you, OR THE STATE, to defend such right.
A privilege is something free given, or exchanged upon condition, such as living in a society. If you want to live in a society, you have social obligations and responsibilities. You have the RIGHT to leave that society and live elsewhere. You do NOT have the right to force your way into society, or demand that they protect you. If you want protection, then you must pay TAXES, and service in the MILITARY, or defend your community.
Yes, it IS priviledge that one some may participate and receive a LICENSE.
The blind cannot drive a car.
Criminals cannot own guns.
Therefore, the State's prerogative to issue licenses for marriage is perfectly reasonable and logical. Society's absolute authority on such unions on marriage is self-evident ... no polygamy, no incest marriage, etc.
Thus, the license.
No one has the final say on anything. Even if the Supreme Court errors in their judgement, it changes nothing whatsoever.
Why? Because I could not make my current wife marry me. Nor can I prevent her from divorcing me. Therefore, by LOGIC ALONE, it cannot be a right. No government, no society, no amount of argument can change that basic fact.
Unless, of course, you want a world in which marriages are arranged and people forced to get married?
You have a flaw in your thought process......I do have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit to happiness.......I can defend my life with force, the same as my property........THAT DOES NOT MEAN I HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE SOMEONE TO MARRY ME......not the same thing and the fact that you would equate the two things the same way does prove that you have a flaw in your thinking!!!

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#20 Jun 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
This thread has not been open for years.
If you make a claim, provide the evidence.
Otherwise, I have no reason to accept it.
Well, this thread ISN'T the only place this discussion has taken place on topix and it is obvious that you are incapable of doing your own research so here is a link for ya:
http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574...

and another:
http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files...

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#21 Jun 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-...

So, NorCal Native, are you trying to make a false argument to bully others into accepting your world view?
Did ya bother to read further in your link from Wikipedia? Obviously not.....here ya go:
A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.[5]

Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt.[6] In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men.[7] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[8][9][9] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[10]

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[11] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[12]

So, where is the false claim? and How am I bullying you or forcing my views on you?

Same garbage from those who don't like what History claims!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 18
Next Last

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 3 min St Rick Saintpornum 1,546
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 min Prep-for-Dep 17,587
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 5 min KarlVXIII 1,511
News Child of Lesbian Moms Says Same-Sex Marriage Is... 8 min Butters 498
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 10 min Chris Toal 30,784
News Indiana lawmakers send religious objection bill... 13 min barefoot2626 53
News Pastor stands against same-sex marriage 17 min St Rick Saintpornum 253
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 1 hr Old Sarge 1,890
More from around the web