New Mexico Lawmakers To Consider Marriage-Equality Measure

Jan 20, 2013 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.queerty.com

If the Legislature approves a proposed constitutional amendment , voters in New Mexico could soon be voting on whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage.

Comments
1 - 19 of 19 Comments Last updated Jan 22, 2013

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

If people are going to be allowed to vote on whether to allow gay and lesbian Americans to marry, then why should they also not be allowed to vote on whether to allow Buddhist and Hindu Americans to marry ?

One of the major reasons for having a written U.S. Constitution (some countries don't have a written constitution), is to PREVENT the "tyranny of the majority" from depriving Americans of their fundamental RIGHTS.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hmmmm, that's an interesting twist on things.

New Mexico doesn't currently have a constitutional ban on same-sex couples marrying, but any law the legislature passes would be vetoed by the current anti-gay governor.

This is a way to get around that by avoiding her veto and sending it directly to the people for a vote.

Hmmmmm, interesting strategy indeed.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FYI-

New Mexico state Senate- 24D, 17 R.
New Mexico state House- 38D, 30 R.

New Mexico Governor- Martinez (R); opposes even civil unions.

So the Dems don't have enough to override the Govs promised veto, but they might have enough votes to go around her directly to the people.
prnnd

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 21, 2013
 
youtube.com/watch...
Marriage equality reality now people,must be considered

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 21, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
FYI-
New Mexico state Senate- 24D, 17 R.
New Mexico state House- 38D, 30 R.
New Mexico Governor- Martinez (R); opposes even civil unions.
So the Dems don't have enough to override the Govs promised veto, but they might have enough votes to go around her directly to the people.
But in doing so, you would legitimize the practice of letting the populace vote on the fundamantal rights of other citizens. What then is to prevent people from being allowed to vote on whether to allow Hindu Americans, Buddhist Americans, and any other group of Americans to be allowed to marry ?

One of the major reasons for having a written federal constitution, and a written state constitution, is to specifically PREVENT exactly what you are advocating.

The 14th Amendment says what it means and means what it says. ALL citizens of the United States have the SAME RIGHTS in our constitutional federal republic. And it is the duty of the COURTS to draw the lines to define exactly what that means. And we're seeing that play out right now as SCOTUS considers the Prop. 8 case and the DOMA case.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 21, 2013
 
And I lived in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 2011 and I loved the city, but it proved much too cold for my liking.

(High 70's predicted here in southern Arizona for all of this week while many of the northern states are now facing temperatures of 50 degrees below zero with the wind-chill factor).

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 21, 2013
 
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
But in doing so, you would legitimize the practice of letting the populace vote on the fundamantal rights of other citizens. What then is to prevent people from being allowed to vote on whether to allow Hindu Americans, Buddhist Americans, and any other group of Americans to be allowed to marry ?
One of the major reasons for having a written federal constitution, and a written state constitution, is to specifically PREVENT exactly what you are advocating.
The 14th Amendment says what it means and means what it says. ALL citizens of the United States have the SAME RIGHTS in our constitutional federal republic. And it is the duty of the COURTS to draw the lines to define exactly what that means. And we're seeing that play out right now as SCOTUS considers the Prop. 8 case and the DOMA case.
Well, we don't know yet what the SCOTUS is going to rule on those two cases, so we don't know if the system is going to work as intended or not. In a perfect world, the SCOTUS would absolutely rule in favor of equal rights. But they don't always do that, do they?(see "Bowers vs. Hardwick" and "Dred Scott" for examples)

And as far as a vote goes, you take your rights where you can get them, don't you think? If we had a good chance of winning a public vote and getting our civil rights recognized that way, I say we should go for it!

I agree with you that civil rights issues should NEVER be put to a public vote. When those rights are being unconstitutionally withheld, why not take any road we can that will lead to ending such practices?

Sometimes you have the option of standing on principal insisting that voting on civil rights is wrong and continuing to have your rights denied you, or you can get them through a popular vote. Until the SCOTUS throws out ALL anti-marriage laws (which it's not expected to do any time soon), voting is the only route to us getting ours recognized, right? Either voting by the public or voting in the legislatures....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
But in doing so, you would legitimize the practice of letting the populace vote on the fundamantal rights of other citizens. What then is to prevent people from being allowed to vote on whether to allow Hindu Americans, Buddhist Americans, and any other group of Americans to be allowed to marry ?
One of the major reasons for having a written federal constitution, and a written state constitution, is to specifically PREVENT exactly what you are advocating.
The 14th Amendment says what it means and means what it says. ALL citizens of the United States have the SAME RIGHTS in our constitutional federal republic. And it is the duty of the COURTS to draw the lines to define exactly what that means. And we're seeing that play out right now as SCOTUS considers the Prop. 8 case and the DOMA case.
Sorry, but the cat's out of the bag on that one already. In case you didn't notice, states HAVE been voting on our right to marry. To my knowledge the SCOTUS hasn't ruled states do not have the right to hold such votes.

Until the SCOTUS does make such a ruling, I'll support any effort to expand marriage equality in a state through any existing legal mechanism.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 21, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we don't know yet what the SCOTUS is going to rule on those two cases, so we don't know if the system is going to work as intended or not. In a perfect world, the SCOTUS would absolutely rule in favor of equal rights. But they don't always do that, do they?(see "Bowers vs. Hardwick" and "Dred Scott" for examples)
And as far as a vote goes, you take your rights where you can get them, don't you think? If we had a good chance of winning a public vote and getting our civil rights recognized that way, I say we should go for it!
I agree with you that civil rights issues should NEVER be put to a public vote. When those rights are being unconstitutionally withheld, why not take any road we can that will lead to ending such practices?
Sometimes you have the option of standing on principal insisting that voting on civil rights is wrong and continuing to have your rights denied you, or you can get them through a popular vote. Until the SCOTUS throws out ALL anti-marriage laws (which it's not expected to do any time soon), voting is the only route to us getting ours recognized, right? Either voting by the public or voting in the legislatures....
I think that you and I agree on our goals, but not how to get there.

And remember that when the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified, and even when all of the subsequent amendments were written and ratified, the authors of the U.S. Constitution and those amendments certainly did not have the same concept of "equality under the law" as we do today.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jan 21, 2013
 
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that you and I agree on our goals, but not how to get there.
And remember that when the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified, and even when all of the subsequent amendments were written and ratified, the authors of the U.S. Constitution and those amendments certainly did not have the same concept of "equality under the law" as we do today.
Absolutely right! And I absolutely DO believe that *eventually* the system will work and we WILL get our equal rights.

But I'm also certain that I don't want to wait that long if there are other ways to get them. I'm guessing that you're a very young person. I'm 49 and my husband is 60. We don't have 20 more years to wait to have our equal marriage rights recognized. We need them NOW.

So stomping our feet and demanding NO VOTING ON CIVIL RIGHTS when ours have already been voted away just doesn't make sense when that's a viable avenue for getting those rights recognized.

Let me ask you, if your house was burning down and the fire department from a neighboring community showed up first, would you turn them away declaring that they're not the proper fire department to save your house or would you let them put the fire out?

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jan 21, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely right! And I absolutely DO believe that *eventually* the system will work and we WILL get our equal rights.
But I'm also certain that I don't want to wait that long if there are other ways to get them. I'm guessing that you're a very young person. I'm 49 and my husband is 60. We don't have 20 more years to wait to have our equal marriage rights recognized. We need them NOW.
So stomping our feet and demanding NO VOTING ON CIVIL RIGHTS when ours have already been voted away just doesn't make sense when that's a viable avenue for getting those rights recognized.
Let me ask you, if your house was burning down and the fire department from a neighboring community showed up first, would you turn them away declaring that they're not the proper fire department to save your house or would you let them put the fire out?
My age is midway between yours and your husband's.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jan 21, 2013
 
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
My age is midway between yours and your husband's.
So you'd let your house burn down while you wait for the "correct" fire department to show up?

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
So you'd let your house burn down while you wait for the "correct" fire department to show up?
Unlike you and others here, I have principles. And I won't violate them. I'm a constitutional literalist. The U.S. Constitution says what it means, and means what it says. No more and no less.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike you and others here, I have principles. And I won't violate them. I'm a constitutional literalist. The U.S. Constitution says what it means, and means what it says. No more and no less.
That's called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Yep, that proves what an idiot you are.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's called cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Yep, that proves what an idiot you are.
So unlike myself, you are saying you have NO RESPECT AT ALL for the U.S. Constitution. You're in good company. Neither does The Obamaniac.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
So unlike myself, you are saying you have NO RESPECT AT ALL for the U.S. Constitution. You're in good company. Neither does The Obamaniac.
I 100% respect the US Constitution, but until we can get everyone else to do so, I will support whatever CONSTITUTIONAL methods are available to us to achieve equality, whether that's through the courts, the legislature, or YES even a vote of the people.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I 100% respect the US Constitution, but until we can get everyone else to do so, I will support whatever CONSTITUTIONAL methods are available to us to achieve equality, whether that's through the courts, the legislature, or YES even a vote of the people.
It's a nice idea to stand firm and do it right. But people are dying every day without ever having the change to have their marriage legally recognized.

Common sense says we should use EVERY legal method to obtain that equality under the law.

People lives and security are at stake, not just obscure points of law.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
So unlike myself, you are saying you have NO RESPECT AT ALL for the U.S. Constitution. You're in good company. Neither does The Obamaniac.
No, he's saying that people's lives and families are more important than holding out for perfection.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a nice idea to stand firm and do it right. But people are dying every day without ever having the change to have their marriage legally recognized.
Common sense says we should use EVERY legal method to obtain that equality under the law.
People lives and security are at stake, not just obscure points of law.
Common sense?

Well that leaves out Cal/Fred/Frank/DanielP from Long Island........

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.

•••
•••