NM high court won't decide gay marria...

NM high court won't decide gay marriage issue

There are 119 comments on the Alamogordo Daily News story from Aug 17, 2013, titled NM high court won't decide gay marriage issue. In it, Alamogordo Daily News reports that:

New Mexico's highest court isn't going to immediately decide whether gay marriage is legal in the state and instead will allow lower courts to first consider the issue.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Alamogordo Daily News.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#21 Aug 18, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The pattern of things changes ONLY for us, not for you.
If society decided that your right to marry was inappropriate, and arbitrarily decided that you would NEVER be able to marry your spouse, would you fight that? Would your love your spouse enough, and your kids enough, to demand the same basic right to marry that all other adults in society have?
If not, then your marriage is worthless.
And why do you feel that you should have the right to decide which consenting single adult I can marry? Would you sit still and take it if I have the ability to decide for YOU?
Marriage is NOT a "liberal agenda". Marriage is a basic human and civil right that cannot be taken from me or anyone else on a whim. There needs to be a rational state interest to do that, and, in this case, there is no such thing.
The state's interest is in helping families to be more stable, chidlren to be more protected, and the elderly to be more secure, and marriage helps with ALL of these things - for gay and straight people alike.
So you agree then the majority would not vote as you would like them to? Quite an admission! Life in the US is decided by the majority regardless of how we may or may not like the outcome of the vote.

You do have the right to decide for me, every time you enter the voting booth, as I have for you. That's how it was intended and how it works.

SS marriage is a liberal agenda, you know it and so do I. Since you admit the majority would not side with you then you must also admit you'd prefer the tail wag the dog.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#22 Aug 18, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly, it shouldn't need to be "settled", since marriage is already a civil right. However, since some people seem to be hell-bent on harming other people's families, the courts will indeed have to decide. And, in this case, it will start with the lower courts and work it's way up.
Costing tax-payer dollars and stress for the families concerned.
Harming others families is YOUR interpretation of the issue, and another redirection deflection.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#23 Aug 18, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Why, then, has the court deemed marriage a basic civil right in case after case? Even murderers on death row can legally marry. We are going by law, here, and the courts have already deemed marriage a civil right.
If you want to strip that right away from a segment of society, then there needs to be a valid interest in doing so.
Can you come up with even one rational reason for denying a same sex couples the ability to legally marry? Will it harm them? Their Children? Society? Is "I think they're icky" enough of a reason to deny a basic civil right to a group?
Prove it.
All the more reason why the courts should not decide the issue. They've spent so much time trying to decide issues and for the most part are now biting themselves in their collective backsides because of their case law interpretations & decisions.

You view it as a right, seems the majority may not agree with you. Hence we once again come down to definitions.

My opinion is not the issue as your desire is just to argue. I'm simply saying let the people decide.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#24 Aug 18, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps a definition of discrimination with respect to the DoI would be a better starting point. Yours, mine and others interpretations are certainly different and that seems to be the crux of many peoples argument for/against it. I don't see it as something the legal system can/should be deciding, I think it should be decided by the people voting and the outcome is what it is, regardless of our opinions.
It's exactly the sort of thing that the courts need to decide. If a majority of voters decide to vote away basic civil and human rights from a minority, with NO rational or state interest in that denial of rights, of course it need to go to the court.

Judging the constitutionality of laws is one of the reasons they were created, isn't it? The average voter isn't a constitutional scholar, after all.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#25 Aug 18, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
So you agree then the majority would not vote as you would like them to? Quite an admission! Life in the US is decided by the majority regardless of how we may or may not like the outcome of the vote.
..
It's hard to say, and that's why we don't vote on which guaranteed civil and human rights we allow minorities to have.

And no, such things not always decided by the majority, in cases where civil rights come into play. As they should not.

It's not about "liking the outcome". If you vote to harm me, and my family, and countless other families, for no reason other than "we don't like you", then expect a fight, and expect the courts to overturn that unconstitutional vote at some point. It's part of their job - the government's job - to protect the basic rights of ALL citizens, not just those in the majority.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#26 Aug 18, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
........
SS marriage is a liberal agenda, you know it and so do I. Since you admit the majority would not side with you then you must also admit you'd prefer the tail wag the dog.
I could care less if the majority sides with me, as long as my rigths and my family are protected equally under the law.

It's just that simple.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#27 Aug 18, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
Harming others families is YOUR interpretation of the issue, and another redirection deflection.
It's no interpretation, it's just the facts. There are well over 1000 ways gay couples and their families are harmed by the denial of a marriage license - those are well documents and not in dispute.

And it's no "redirection". It's the the REASON gay people fight so hard for equal protection under the law. It's the whole point.

For you, it's an intellectual exercise. For gay couples and their families, it's LIFE.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#28 Aug 18, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
All the more reason why the courts should not decide the issue. They've spent so much time trying to decide issues and for the most part are now biting themselves in their collective backsides because of their case law interpretations & decisions.
You view it as a right, seems the majority may not agree with you. Hence we once again come down to definitions.
My opinion is not the issue as your desire is just to argue. I'm simply saying let the people decide.
Which people?

Can you explain why a majority should always be able to decide what basic civil and human rights any minority should receive - when those basic rights are supposed to be guaranteed to all, unless there is a rational state interest in denying them.

Usually, it's only those in a majority who feel that way. People in a minority often feel differently.

And if you don't expect a debate, don't post on Topix. If you would just like everyone to agree with you, and not present their own opinions and beliefs, you are in the wrong place.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#29 Aug 18, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
It's exactly the sort of thing that the courts need to decide. If a majority of voters decide to vote away basic civil and human rights from a minority, with NO rational or state interest in that denial of rights, of course it need to go to the court.
Judging the constitutionality of laws is one of the reasons they were created, isn't it? The average voter isn't a constitutional scholar, after all.
Not in my opinion, the courts are not really capable of deciding such an issue. This is an issue that society should be voting on, the country belongs to the people, not the flawed government not the flawed court system who cannot make rational decisions - again, in my opinion.

And nobody needs to justify to anyone else, especially you, why they voted as they did. That's their business, just like your vote is your business.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#30 Aug 18, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
It's hard to say, and that's why we don't vote on which guaranteed civil and human rights we allow minorities to have.
And no, such things not always decided by the majority, in cases where civil rights come into play. As they should not.
It's not about "liking the outcome". If you vote to harm me, and my family, and countless other families, for no reason other than "we don't like you", then expect a fight, and expect the courts to overturn that unconstitutional vote at some point. It's part of their job - the government's job - to protect the basic rights of ALL citizens, not just those in the majority.
Another misdirection redirection using inappropriate language "If you vote to harm me..." and ""we don't like you...". Stirring the pot by sensationalizing, typical. It's your view that basic human rights are being stepped on, not everyone else agrees with you. Tail wagging the dog.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#31 Aug 18, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
I could care less if the majority sides with me, as long as my rigths and my family are protected equally under the law.
It's just that simple.
Just because YOU think your rights are being violated doesn't mean you are correct.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#32 Aug 18, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
It's no interpretation, it's just the facts. There are well over 1000 ways gay couples and their families are harmed by the denial of a marriage license - those are well documents and not in dispute.
And it's no "redirection". It's the the REASON gay people fight so hard for equal protection under the law. It's the whole point.
For you, it's an intellectual exercise. For gay couples and their families, it's LIFE.
Regardless of your assertions and innuendo, I do not agree with you, do not agree with SS marriage, nor will I ever, but that is my opinion, and that's how I'd vote on the issue. I have no need nor desire to justify why I feel as I do. As I said earlier if it passes - fine, I don't have to like it, I just have to accept that it is the will of the people.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#33 Aug 18, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
Just because YOU think your rights are being violated doesn't mean you are correct.
This could have been settled once and for all 42 years ago if the Supremes had had the foresight to actually rule in the case of Baker V Nelson instead of wimping out for want of a federal question. The problem is, you would not have been happy with the answer the Court would have been forced to give. The Supremes had ruled that the individual's right to marry is so fundamental to them, that the denial of it must pass strict scrutiny in order to be permitted to stand. By that standard, prohibitions on same sex marriages are doomed. It is our right to be legally married, not our right to legally marry only our approved opposite sex.. What interest of the state would that be exactly? Your "issues" with same sex marriages shouldn't be anyone's legal obstacle to enter into one. Tell me, were there any one in your lives who had "issues" with either you or your wife's choice of marital partner? Did any of them advocate for a constitutional amendment against it?

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#34 Aug 18, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>This could have been settled once and for all 42 years ago if the Supremes had had the foresight to actually rule in the case of Baker V Nelson instead of wimping out for want of a federal question...
But it wasn't and it's now a topic of interest to many. All the more reason for a public vote on the issue.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#35 Aug 18, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
But it wasn't and it's now a topic of interest to many. All the more reason for a public vote on the issue.
Our nation is a representative republic for good reason, direct democracy carries with it a threat of tyranny by those in a "majority". Rights that are guaranteed to all us individuals by the US Constitution shouldn't be subjected to the whims of the local voters. We individuals have been given a right to be married by that Constitution. It currently extends to just about any currently incarcerated felon of our dreams. I'm still waiting for somebody with issues with same sex marriages to explain to me what the compelling interest of the state is in the axe murderer you are marrying being of the opposite sex.

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

#36 Aug 18, 2013
The bottom line is that opposition to same-sex marriage is based in religious bigotry.

And measures like the Defense of Marriage Act, or laws to ban same-sex marriage, won't do much to protect heterosexual marriages from the divorce epidemic. Not even a blowhard like Rush Limbaugh can blame his first three failed marriages on gays.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#37 Aug 18, 2013
The Courts are going to have to sort this out. Our Legislatures and Executives have largely failed us on this issue. The voters have been of even less help, enacting laws and state constitutional amendments which deny consenting adults constitutionally guaranteed rights. They haven't prevented same sex marriage, they have guaranteed their recognition as a right. The first of the amendments that is now found unconstitutional by the Courts overturns them all. The amendments of at least 10 states have had federal claims filed against them and several others are running into problems in state court. It should be all over but the screaming in 2-3 years. You will have the right to marry someone of your same sex or opposite sex without unwarranted government interference in your life.

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

#38 Aug 18, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
The Courts are going to have to sort this out. Our Legislatures and Executives have largely failed us on this issue. The voters have been of even less help, enacting laws and state constitutional amendments which deny consenting adults constitutionally guaranteed rights. They haven't prevented same sex marriage, they have guaranteed their recognition as a right. The first of the amendments that is now found unconstitutional by the Courts overturns them all. The amendments of at least 10 states have had federal claims filed against them and several others are running into problems in state court. It should be all over but the screaming in 2-3 years. You will have the right to marry someone of your same sex or opposite sex without unwarranted government interference in your life.
It will all be sorted out.

Fifty years from now the same-sex marriage controversy of today will be looked upon as we now look back at the time when women were not allowed to vote, or when Blacks and Whites were not allowed to marry.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#39 Aug 18, 2013
Lobo Viejo wrote:
It will all be sorted out.
Fifty years from now the same-sex marriage controversy of today will be looked upon as we now look back at the time when women were not allowed to vote, or when Blacks and Whites were not allowed to marry.
A lot of these folk have ensured that their place in history is going to be an embarrassing one. I say let them.

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

#40 Aug 18, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>A lot of these folk have ensured that their place in history is going to be an embarrassing one. I say let them.
It will be an embarrassing, but little known, place in history.

Lots of people know who Rosa Parks was, and she is immortalized as a hero in American history. But almost nobody knows the names of the bus driver, arresting officers and prosecutors.

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.

New Mexico Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Say it in six words (Jul '08) 12 min Tinman 12,021
New Mexico MVD: Still the worst customer servi... (Aug '11) Apr 15 Rhonda 14
News Lujan Grisham cruises at Democratic convention Apr 15 Bloodonhishands 20
News New Mexico produces less chile in 2017 Apr 14 go home 9
News New Mexico state and local tax revenues rise th... Apr 12 Tinman 1
News New Mexico pledges 250 troops to Mexican border Apr 10 Richies Cool Man ... 5
News Walk Against Child Abuse March 2018 Apr 9 Chief big un 3