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.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#41 Aug 19, 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.
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.
But that is the whole point of the Supremes and Prop 13. You cannot vote away people's rights. You cannot vote to bar people from benefits others have. Majority is mob rule. Want to go to referendums for everything. That would be a sure fire way to get it to the courts. Think it out.

You don't put rights and equal protection to a vote. "Mob rule"? Now there is a reason for that term.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#42 Aug 19, 2013
...of the people, by the people and for the people. Let the people vote.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#43 Aug 19, 2013
Lobo Viejo wrote:
The bottom line is that opposition to same-sex marriage is based in religious bigotry.
Not by me.
they will

Los Alamos, NM

#44 Aug 19, 2013
decide this eventually, but like the US Supreme Court, they need a case to come before them.
Baby puncher

United States

#45 Aug 19, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
Since nobody can decide because of how it is addressed in the NM St Constitution, this is probably a question best left to the public, not politicians. Afterall, WE are NM, not THEM.
Had the 1964 Civil Rights Act been put up for public vote instead of congressional and presidential action, we'd probably still have equal but separate facilities. No to a public vote on this issue.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#46 Aug 19, 2013
Baby puncher wrote:
<quoted text>
Had the 1964 Civil Rights Act been put up for public vote instead of congressional and presidential action, we'd probably still have equal but separate facilities. No to a public vote on this issue.
Totally different and dissimilar issues. You say no to a public vote because you believe the American public doesn't embrace your lifestyle. Oh well...

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#47 Aug 19, 2013
Lobo Viejo wrote:
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.
I look forward to the day we can say, remember when there used to be loons who had "issues" with same sex couples being married. They used to get all freaked out about the idea because they couldn't quit fantasizing about our sex lives.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#48 Aug 19, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
...of the people, by the people and for the people. Let the people vote.
Which of your constitutionally guaranteed rights do you want voters deciding whether or not you should be allowed to keep? Can your right to be married be put up for a vote at least? It's only fair.

The solution is simple, if you don't approve of same sex marriages, don't marry someone of your same sex. Your disapproval doesn't warrant government intrusion into our lives let alone serve to deny our right to marry someone who is otherwise legally qualified to marry us, for no other reason than they aren't of our opposite sex.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#49 Aug 19, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
Totally different and dissimilar issues. You say no to a public vote because you believe the American public doesn't embrace your lifestyle. Oh well...
The lifestyle of making a hopefully lifetime legal commitment by marrying the person we love in order to build a family together? Your problem with that lifestyle choice would be what exactly? Should we even care what your problem with it is? Too many people like you are the reason that NOBODY'S guaranteed individual rights should ever be placed at the mercy of the voters. The masses can be right asses.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#50 Aug 19, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
...of the people, by the people and for the people. Let the people vote.
Have you taken 8th grade Civics class yet? I'm thinking you haven't. You're arguing issues that our constitution and our system of government simply don't allow.

Yes, anything and everything can and does get voted into law. Want to pass a law that everyone named Bob should be hanged at sundown?? I'm sure you could get such a law passed because you can always whip up some sort of panic about people named Bob that will allow such a law to be voted in.

But that's why the framers of our constitution put in place the judicial branch with the express responsibility of invalidating such laws if they violate our constitution. And laws arbitrarily punishing or excluding certain people for no legitimate government purpose, by the terms of the constitution, will be tossed.

If someone decided that people fitting your description should be denied civil marriage rights, would you think it perfectly fine if the people in your district voted away your right to marry? I kinda doubt it.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#51 Aug 19, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally different and dissimilar issues. You say no to a public vote because you believe the American public doesn't embrace your lifestyle. Oh well...
And you say YES to a public vote because you believe that your personal beliefs on the matter will be upheld.

AGAIN.... that's why our constitution requires that all laws passed be subject to constitutional review--because the founding fathers knew that the general public can't be trusted to protect the rights of any minority--thus, no mob rule allowed.

Which one our the rights and protections that *you* currently enjoy would you support being put to a public popularity vote?

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#52 Aug 19, 2013
Well, actually the founders gave short shrift and little attention to the Judicial branch, but that notwithstanding, we do vote on every issue. That is why we have Representatives and Senators.

If we go to referendum and vote on everything then do away with the congresscritters. No? Then it is up to the mob to decide what the elected representatives will vote on and what they won't. Nice way to overrule and negate an election.

More holes than swiss cheese.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#53 Aug 19, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
Well, actually the founders gave short shrift and little attention to the Judicial branch, but that notwithstanding, we do vote on every issue. That is why we have Representatives and Senators.
If we go to referendum and vote on everything then do away with the congresscritters. No? Then it is up to the mob to decide what the elected representatives will vote on and what they won't. Nice way to overrule and negate an election.
More holes than swiss cheese.
You haven't taken 8th grade Civics class yet, either, have you?

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#54 Aug 19, 2013
"There’s no way the Framers set up three “coequal branches” of government. Article I, setting up the Congress, is 10 times longer than Article III, setting up the judiciary. The Supreme Court is not given any powers other than to decide cases. The Framers did not bother to pick a number of justices for the Supreme Court. They did not establish even a minimum age for justices, as they did for the president (35), senators (30) or House members (25). The Framers left it up to Congress to fill in the rest of the federal judiciary, but the Framers did think it was important federal judges not be susceptible to political intimidation, so they established that judges – unlike any other office-holders – would have lifetime appointments, removable only by impeachment for bad behavior."

"Americans in general are fairly sentimental about the judicial supremacy, although most of them were taught in a junior high civics class that such a power is clearly based in the Constitution. And you could make a case that, whether intended or not, the power has done more good than harm over the centuries, although the preponderance of evidence is hardly clear on that point."

"The Constitution contains no statement that a statute passed by Congress and signed by the president can be invalidated, abolished or modified by the Supreme Court. If the Framers had such a power clearly in mind, those who believe in “enumerated powers” must dearly wish they had said so in the document. Except they don’t bother dearly wishing it. They just go ahead and pretend it’s there, when it isn’t."

etc. Guess you are right. Never took civics in 8th grade. Homeschoolers seem to have a better curriculum.
http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/1...

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#55 Aug 19, 2013
The framers left such issues as "judicial review" unsettled. Guess if the civics class is in a government school and with government authorized text books you will get the result you want.

Originalists like Scalia and Thomas do believe in the power of judicial review. Careful what you ask for...

It has evolved. And grown. That is the power of not enumerating and detailing its scope.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#56 Aug 19, 2013
Although the concept of judicial review was not spelled out in the Constitution, it was already a practice which had taken hold in over half of the states and well known to the framers. When the Constitution was ratified, it was understood that the federal judiciary had been empowered with judicial review. It is even spelled out as to be used when the SCOTUS heard cases arising from state courts, as part of the Judicial Authorization Act of 1789. It wasn't created out of thin air by Marbury in 1803, federal courts had exercised it more than a couple of dozen times before it. The originalists have been fibbing to you.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#57 Aug 19, 2013
Read for content. You obviously haven't read my other posts. No one has been fibbing. Loved Dred Scott. If it was so well understood and known to the framers, then why wasn't it spelled out. Know we have opinions. Not based on facts. It can go against as well as for, based on opinions. Don't think the founders had that in mind. Is it the case now, yes. And those who live by opinions, dies by opinions. It is no longer based on constitutionality, but upon opinions and political considerations. Wish it were not so, but so it goes.

Equality under the law has been based on opinions. Dred Scott. There is an example of judicial review. Say it is not so.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#58 Aug 19, 2013
I guess the NM High Court won't decide upon gay marriage because of Constitutional issues rather than political. Just like the Dems and BC passed DOMA. It was for Constitutional, not political reasons. Which way is the wind blowing?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#59 Aug 19, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
Read for content. You obviously haven't read my other posts. No one has been fibbing. Loved Dred Scott. If it was so well understood and known to the framers, then why wasn't it spelled out. Know we have opinions. Not based on facts. It can go against as well as for, based on opinions. Don't think the founders had that in mind. Is it the case now, yes. And those who live by opinions, dies by opinions. It is no longer based on constitutionality, but upon opinions and political considerations. Wish it were not so, but so it goes.
Equality under the law has been based on opinions. Dred Scott. There is an example of judicial review. Say it is not so.
The U.S. Constitutional provision that: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." is part of the 14th Amendment which was NOT part of the U.S. Constitution at all until 11 YEARS AFTER Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was decided by SCOTUS.

There WAS NO constitutional, nor legal requirement of "equal protection of the laws" for ANYONE at the time that the Dred Scott case was decided by SCOTUS.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#60 Aug 19, 2013
Right, Reconstruction, 1868. Most litigated Amendment. Political. Opinion. My point. "All men are created equal..." Not part of our Constitution. Doesn't make it untrue. Took a civil war to get that Amendment and bring the Southern states into the Union. And it is how long after before Civil Rights and not an Amendment? And how long after for Gay Marriage to be recognized? Seems it is political and opinion, not Constitutional issues that drive the bus.

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) Apr 30 trumpclinton shel... 8,752
A star born here said the people here don't lea... Apr 26 Hope this helps 1
News Pay-to-play settlement hearing kicks off in New... Apr 26 Jackson 1
News Obama to announce steps to fight heroin, opioid... Apr 26 barry 4
News 'Double dippers' fought legislation (May '09) Apr 20 concerned citizen 56
One World Government Ted Cruz Apr 11 Vote For Trump 1
Dick enlarger for me please (Sep '15) Apr 6 quezoncity 4
More from around the web