New Mexico Legislature to Vote on Gay Marriage Bill

Jan 25, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

The New Mexico state legislature is set to hear a bill that could make it legal for gay couples to marry in the state.

Comments
1 - 17 of 17 Comments Last updated Jan 28, 2013

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

This seems stupidly premature.

Are they REALLY on our side?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

There's really no downside, is there? The arguments get heard. Might as well shoot for the moon rather than some dumb domestic partner registry.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

snyper wrote:
This seems stupidly premature.
Are they REALLY on our side?
While I agree it would stand a better chance of passing if we waited until 2016, that's a long time to ask gays & lesbians in New Mexico to wait.

We don't have much choice since the anti-gay Governor said she will veto even civil unions.

If they've got the votes to pass it, then do it and send it directly to the people for a vote.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Tony C wrote:
There's really no downside, is there? The arguments get heard. Might as well shoot for the moon rather than some dumb domestic partner registry.
All that domestic partner registry is to 'keep a tracking' on where we live. We have that here in KC and we did NOT register.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

In related news, Hawaii introduced a marriage bill as well this week.

That makes 9 states working on marriage equality this year- NM, HI, IL, DE, RI, MN, NJ, WY, & CA, as well as civil unions in Colorado.

Wow.

Not that we'll be successful in all 9, but still- wow.
Calvin

Fremont, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have much choice since the anti-gay Governor said she will veto even civil unions.
WOO HOO!!!

Since: Feb 10

Woodstock, Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

This is great to see. Granted, it has no chance to pass now, but it gets a conversation started. That is how all successful equality bills began. This should be happening in every state.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
While I agree it would stand a better chance of passing if we waited until 2016, that's a long time to ask gays & lesbians in New Mexico to wait.
We don't have much choice since the anti-gay Governor said she will veto even civil unions.
If they've got the votes to pass it, then do it and send it directly to the people for a vote.
With every day that passes, we get stronger. In certain venues, it isn't good to give the inevitable opposition rallying points. At this stage, in this venue, with midterms coming up, the only value to setting up a loss would be to drag opposition money away from where we have a better chance.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
With every day that passes, we get stronger. In certain venues, it isn't good to give the inevitable opposition rallying points. At this stage, in this venue, with midterms coming up, the only value to setting up a loss would be to drag opposition money away from where we have a better chance.
I tend to agree, which is why I said I'd prefer they wait until 2016. That said, maybe a vote sooner will force NOM to redirect money from other states ensuring victory there. Or it could be a way to get the Gov to support civil unions instead.

Regardless, it's up to the people of New Mexico to decide how best to move forward in their state; I'll support whatever they do.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I tend to agree, which is why I said I'd prefer they wait until 2016. That said, maybe a vote sooner will force NOM to redirect money from other states ensuring victory there. Or it could be a way to get the Gov to support civil unions instead.
Regardless, it's up to the people of New Mexico to decide how best to move forward in their state; I'll support whatever they do.
We are in general agreement, but with reservations on your last.

We are now a part of History (please note the capital "H"), each of us part of a National movement that is linked with the lives, dreams and strivings of gay people all over the globe .... some who are dying for the cause. We can't just think in terms of State tactics anymore. A State campaign may need to be intentionally lost or delayed in order that a State with a greater Electoral punch may win. Some, like say Kansas with it's shrieking Phelpses, may actually need to regress in order to display the ugliness of discimination to others insensitive to it's actual implications.

At this level, such decisions need to be made very adroitly.

At this level, our opposition drops Brinks trucks on those they disagree with.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jan 27, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
We are in general agreement, but with reservations on your last.
We are now a part of History (please note the capital "H"), each of us part of a National movement that is linked with the lives, dreams and strivings of gay people all over the globe .... some who are dying for the cause. We can't just think in terms of State tactics anymore. A State campaign may need to be intentionally lost or delayed in order that a State with a greater Electoral punch may win. Some, like say Kansas with it's shrieking Phelpses, may actually need to regress in order to display the ugliness of discimination to others insensitive to it's actual implications.
At this level, such decisions need to be made very adroitly.
At this level, our opposition drops Brinks trucks on those they disagree with.
Actually even NOM admits they ran out of money to properly fight 4 state battles at once. Considering how effective they've been in the past when they were able to focus on just one or two states at a time, I'd say that may have indeed been a factor in our election day sweep.

Bottom line is this ISN'T a national movement, but rather 41 individual state battles in ADDITION to a battle at the federal level. I understand what you're saying, but it's simply not realistic to expect gays & lesbians (and our allies) in one state to forego that chance- no matter how slim- on the assumption it may help elsewhere.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jan 27, 2013
 
Harold wrote:
Are there any states with the integrity and decency to say NO to this gay marriage crap?
It doesn't matter. If they do, they'll eventually be overturned.

This is America, remember? Home of the FREE? Equality for ALL?

What part of that don't you understand?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jan 27, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually even NOM admits they ran out of money to properly fight 4 state battles at once. Considering how effective they've been in the past when they were able to focus on just one or two states at a time, I'd say that may have indeed been a factor in our election day sweep.
Bottom line is this ISN'T a national movement, but rather 41 individual state battles in ADDITION to a battle at the federal level. I understand what you're saying, but it's simply not realistic to expect gays & lesbians (and our allies) in one state to forego that chance- no matter how slim- on the assumption it may help elsewhere.
Then if we lose ... THAT will be a large part of why.

It's nuts: "I just can't wait to LOSE!"

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if we lose ... THAT will be a large part of why.
It's nuts: "I just can't wait to LOSE!"
Oh don't be such a negative Nancy.

YES, we may lose. BFD.

If we do, then we try again the next year or the next year.

I'd rather lose a fight than give up without even trying.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jan 27, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh don't be such a negative Nancy.
YES, we may lose. BFD.
If we do, then we try again the next year or the next year.
I'd rather lose a fight than give up without even trying.
I agree, generally speaking, and I think the process in itself can move the discussion forward. People will make arguments. Some elected officials may hear arguments that plant the seed in their heads for the first time, etc.

I think (and I really don't know what I'm talking about as far as the specifics go) the only downside I can see is if it were to come to a decision before the Supreme Court rules. Just as we assume the big 4 votes of the last election show them momentum, I wonder if any setbacks between now and June (or is it March?) have the opposite potential effect. I'm assuming this one in NM wouldn't have any decision before June (?)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jan 27, 2013
 
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, generally speaking, and I think the process in itself can move the discussion forward. People will make arguments. Some elected officials may hear arguments that plant the seed in their heads for the first time, etc.
I think (and I really don't know what I'm talking about as far as the specifics go) the only downside I can see is if it were to come to a decision before the Supreme Court rules. Just as we assume the big 4 votes of the last election show them momentum, I wonder if any setbacks between now and June (or is it March?) have the opposite potential effect. I'm assuming this one in NM wouldn't have any decision before June (?)
Valid concerns, but no chance this goes before the voters in New Mexico before the SCOTUS ruling. Assuming they legislature manages to pass it, they'd either let it go on next regularly scheduled election or they could call a special election later this year.

I agree that at this point it's the conversations taking place that are the most significant developments in states like New Mexico and even Wyoming.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jan 28, 2013
 
New Mexico is 90% RC.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

54 Users are viewing the Gay/Lesbian Forum right now

Search the Gay/Lesbian Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 5 min DNF 2,755
Correction: Exxon Mobil-Gay Rights Story 6 min Jumper The wise 1
MSU Gets Anonymous $1 Million Gift For Gay Center 8 min Jumper The wise 34
The Coming Christian Revolt 11 min Jumper The wise 269
Biggest Gay Lies 12 min Sergeant at Arms 1,231
Court orders halt to Colorado gay marriages 13 min Jumper The wise 17
Texas: Gay-marriage ban best for children 13 min WeTheSheeple 81
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 24 min Frankie Rizzo 52,934
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr DNF 2,628
•••
•••