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

#61 Aug 19, 2013
Equal Protection based on the anti-federalists and the Bill of Rights. But not until 1954 and Brown v Board of Education. Didn't take long since Dred Scott was 1857. 104 years later we go.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#62 Aug 20, 2013
Although the power of judicial review is not expressly stated in the Constitution, federal courts were engaging in it right from the start. Marbury was merely the first case in which the Supremes employed it, lower courts used it multiple times in a number of cases which never were appealed to the SCOTUS, a federal court first struck down an act of Congress as unconstitutional in 1792. Constitutional originalists want to turn back the clock to a time which really never existed, a time before our courts employed judicial review. The Supremes hadn't rejected the idea of employing judicial review prior to Marbury, they just hadn't needed to.

Besides, Courts that are unable to redress the mistakes and/or deliberately unconstitutional legislative acts of our elected representatives and/or our fellow voters substituting their wisdom for them, are worse than useless, they would be complicit.
Baby puncher

United States

#63 Aug 20, 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...
I don't need/want your f*ing embrace. And my lifestyle is none of your dam business as yours is none of mine.

Hey, about we have a public vote on whether old pharts over 65 shouldn't be seen in public. Or make it illegal for them to drive or *yuck* hold hands or kiss in public. Hey, I'm coming around to your POV. LOL

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#64 Aug 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
....Besides, Courts that are unable to redress the mistakes and/or deliberately unconstitutional legislative acts of our elected representatives and/or our fellow voters substituting their wisdom for them, are worse than useless, they would be complicit.
Complicit, for sure, but there would also be absolutely no safe-guard in place to ensure that the Constitution is followed by politicians and citizen votes that could, as we've seen countless times, trample on the civil rights of certain groups the majority might find unfashionable at the moment.

What I find most amusing though, is that the same originalists that love to fantasize that the Supreme Court doesn't exist, at the same time, worship their patron saint of originalist revisionist history, Antonin Scalia--a Supreme Court Justice. How does THAT work???
Deanna

Albuquerque, NM

#65 Aug 20, 2013
Baby puncher wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need/want your f*ing embrace. And my lifestyle is none of your dam business as yours is none of mine.
Hey, about we have a public vote on whether old pharts over 65 shouldn't be seen in public. Or make it illegal for them to drive or *yuck* hold hands or kiss in public. Hey, I'm coming around to your POV. LOL
With a name like you use here I can see why many would disagree with you. What kind of name is that, abusive. That is disgusting.
Baby puncher

United States

#66 Aug 20, 2013
Deanna wrote:
<quoted text>
With a name like you use here I can see why many would disagree with you. What kind of name is that, abusive. That is disgusting.
I'm on the side of equality and, most of the posts here are in agreement with that (and ergo, me). Where is this "many" that disagree with equality (and me). I count only one from some befuddled octogenarian stuck in the 50's.

As for my moniker, my grandson is 10 yo and involved with boxing so we call him the baby puncher. LOL I didn't realize there were people out there that would put a sick spin on the name. I guess I'll change it.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#67 Aug 20, 2013
baby puncher

Something that causes extreme frustration. A level of frustration that would cause a person to punch a baby.
Urban Dictionary

Even from an album on YouTube:

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#68 Aug 20, 2013
eJohn wrote:
Complicit, for sure, but there would also be absolutely no safe-guard in place to ensure that the Constitution is followed by politicians and citizen votes that could, as we've seen countless times, trample on the civil rights of certain groups the majority might find unfashionable at the moment.
What I find most amusing though, is that the same originalists that love to fantasize that the Supreme Court doesn't exist, at the same time, worship their patron saint of originalist revisionist history, Antonin Scalia--a Supreme Court Justice. How does THAT work???
The writers of the Constitution didn't mandate judicial review by federal courts, primarily because it was a relatively new idea that wasn't yet universally practiced by the states. They largely favored it, but the practice had yet to stand the test of time and so they didn't want to bind the Courts to it prematurely. Without the authority to check unconstitutional legislative and executive acts, our courts would be useless and the only way of changing anything would be by voting for somebody else and hoping for the best.
too

Albuquerque, NM

#69 Aug 20, 2013
many fruits in new mexico.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#70 Aug 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The writers of the Constitution didn't mandate judicial review by federal courts, primarily because it was a relatively new idea that wasn't yet universally practiced by the states. They largely favored it, but the practice had yet to stand the test of time and so they didn't want to bind the Courts to it prematurely. Without the authority to check unconstitutional legislative and executive acts, our courts would be useless and the only way of changing anything would be by voting for somebody else and hoping for the best.
Agreed. The courts were not first on their minds. Seems that the ballot box to elect people who represent principles and the Constitution is left to people who are ideologues. What is not fair about equal treatment under the law? That is not in the ballot box. Protecting groups and not allowing minorities access is the new political football. We just change the minority group that gets shut out. And majority vote/rule will protect the minority in the face of the mob? Principles change with the wind.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#71 Aug 21, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The writers of the Constitution didn't mandate judicial review by federal courts, primarily because it was a relatively new idea that wasn't yet universally practiced by the states. They largely favored it, but the practice had yet to stand the test of time and so they didn't want to bind the Courts to it prematurely. Without the authority to check unconstitutional legislative and executive acts, our courts would be useless and the only way of changing anything would be by voting for somebody else and hoping for the best.
Right. And the entire Constitution would be merely a list of suggested good things to maybe follow if the mood is right.

I know from studying history that the Supreme Court took quite a while to even be taken seriously in this country, but I think most people agree, even with a court that's as blatantly political as our current one seems to be, that we've gotta have something to ensure that the Constitution is adhered to. As far as I can see, a strong judicial system is the only way that happens.
Baby puncher

United States

#72 Aug 21, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
baby puncher
Something that causes extreme frustration. A level of frustration that would cause a person to punch a baby.
Urban Dictionary
Even from an album on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Y5KC6AD1Kl8XX
Oh really? In that case, I'll keep my moniker, maybe even register it so it don't get stolen. LOL

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#73 Aug 21, 2013
I would do that...looked up that moniker when you first showed up on my radar. Keeps others from stealing it or graying you.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#74 Aug 21, 2013
Well, look at Dona Ana county and their county clerk. Going to issue same sex marriage licenses. Seem she finds the law as "gender neutral" and do not specifically keep her from issuing the licenses. and who is this Gary King? He says our laws prohibit same sex marriages. Must be some rightwingnutteapartyrepublican fundamentalist. Obviously not from the party of choice.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#75 Aug 21, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
Agreed. The courts were not first on their minds. Seems that the ballot box to elect people who represent principles and the Constitution is left to people who are ideologues. What is not fair about equal treatment under the law? That is not in the ballot box. Protecting groups and not allowing minorities access is the new political football. We just change the minority group that gets shut out. And majority vote/rule will protect the minority in the face of the mob? Principles change with the wind.
Denial of equal protection under the law has been a hallmark of our nation's history, it is by no means a new invention. Even a representative republic is susceptible to the tyranny of the majority and there are a whole slew of invasive and unwarranted laws on the books to prove it. The Courts are the last defense within the system to prevent folk from getting carried away with themselves.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#76 Aug 21, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Denial of equal protection under the law has been a hallmark of our nation's history, it is by no means a new invention. Even a representative republic is susceptible to the tyranny of the majority and there are a whole slew of invasive and unwarranted laws on the books to prove it. The Courts are the last defense within the system to prevent folk from getting carried away with themselves.
MOST Americans do NOT, and NEVER have, believed in "equal protection of the laws". Some will never believe in it.

And of course, there is always the continuing argument over what the heck that means anyways. Americans cannot agree on that either.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#77 Aug 21, 2013
eJohn wrote:
Right. And the entire Constitution would be merely a list of suggested good things to maybe follow if the mood is right.
I know from studying history that the Supreme Court took quite a while to even be taken seriously in this country, but I think most people agree, even with a court that's as blatantly political as our current one seems to be, that we've gotta have something to ensure that the Constitution is adhered to. As far as I can see, a strong judicial system is the only way that happens.
For much of its early history, the court limited itself mostly to technical interpretation of federal laws and resolving disputes between the states. They really didn't do much that had any real effect on people's day to day lives.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#78 Aug 21, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>For much of its early history, the court limited itself mostly to technical interpretation of federal laws and resolving disputes between the states. They really didn't do much that had any real effect on people's day to day lives.
As it should be.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#79 Aug 21, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Denial of equal protection under the law has been a hallmark of our nation's history, it is by no means a new invention. Even a representative republic is susceptible to the tyranny of the majority and there are a whole slew of invasive and unwarranted laws on the books to prove it. The Courts are the last defense within the system to prevent folk from getting carried away with themselves.
And your point was? Must have missed it as you have mine. And the courts are the last resort? I guess we are all going down the slippery slope. The courts in NM won't decide...they will be forced to...So that takes care of 2 out of the 3. Leaves us just the courts who are appointed for life by ideologues and those who are in charge. Good thinking.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#80 Aug 22, 2013
King says the AG office does not have authority over county clerks.

King has said it is unwise for county clerks to issue licenses since state law is unclear about same-sex marriages.

"We don't intend at this point to take any action against the county clerk in Dona Ana County. We feel like our position that the law is unconstitutional presents a barrier to us from bringing action in that suit," King said.

Lotsa Luck to anyone who can understand this.

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) 18 hr larry 8,838
News Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) Sun Marc 6,935
Dick enlarger for me please (Sep '15) Sep 24 James 5
News Weird New Mexico: Bigfoot Sightings (Oct '11) Sep 22 reese 116
Need help from a New Mexico resident Sep 19 FromVA 1
News Former deputy receives probation (Jul '08) Sep 14 Cassie 28
News University of New Mexico hosting Route 66 exhib... Sep 8 Dennis A 6
More from around the web