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.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#102 Aug 23, 2013
Activist judge:(n) A judge that just made a ruling with which you don't personally agree.
Baby puncher

United States

#103 Aug 23, 2013
Geez, where's corn dogz? Hope you all didn't cause him to expire. LOL

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#104 Aug 23, 2013
It is the county clerks...not the state or their supremes or the guv.

"The order late Thursday from District Judge Sarah Singleton represents the first time a New Mexico judge has ruled that gay and lesbian couples can be married, said state Rep. Brian Egolf, a lawyer representing Hanna and Hudson in the lawsuit."

It was from a District Judge...not Gary King, S. Martinez, the Supremes or the Legislature.

And where do you get that I oppose SSM's? Quote my post. You seem to have your mind made up about something and it doesn't fit the facts or posts. You must read what you want and flame those who are on the same page. Nice to have you at my back.

Give the quote or go back to school. This is an adult forum.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#105 Aug 23, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
This clear enough or do you need to parse it and look for tone?

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#106 Aug 23, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
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.
DNF, sorry. This is where I must have said I was against SSM. Right?
Jesse Katsopolis

Dallas, TX

#107 Aug 23, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
To be clear, I'm speaking of the voting public here, as in on a ballot to be voted upon, not just public opinion.
I'm not for the ideal myself but will abide by whatever voters think if they/we get the opportunity to vote on it.
90% voting on the rights of 10%.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#108 Aug 24, 2013
Actually given turn-out, it would be only a small percentage of the eligible voters...seems to range from 25%-62%. That is chilling.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#109 Aug 24, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
<quoted text>
DNF, sorry. This is where I must have said I was against SSM. Right?
My apologies. I certainly misunderstood something and really made a big mistake. Please forgive me.

BTW I hope you'll keep this for future reference. Your comments about mob rule and voting away someone's rights reminded me of it.

It's a SCOTUS case from 1943:

SCOTUS Majority opinion:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

P.S. Thanks for the support and for informing me of my error. I deeply regret misrepresenting you and your views.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#110 Aug 24, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
Make that not photographing an illegal wedding is illegal...too confusing.
You find breaking the law confusing?

FTA: "The court found that Elane Photography’s refusal to serve Vanessa Willock violated the act, which “prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation,” according to the ruling."

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#111 Aug 24, 2013
Jesse Katsopolis wrote:
<quoted text>90% voting on the rights of 10%.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#112 Aug 25, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>You find breaking the law confusing?
FTA: "The court found that Elane Photography’s refusal to serve Vanessa Willock violated the act, which “prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation,” according to the ruling."
Just some tongue in cheek. What I find confusing is that no one can say it is Illegal. No one can say it is Legal. They won't make a ruling on the important issue of SSM, but will make an issue on whether someone takes a picture of an event they can't or won't decide is legal or illegal. Seems our executive, legislative and judicial system has met a political issue they are dodging. Hard to make a decision based upon principles and justice? Seems that they have this one topsy turvy.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#113 Aug 25, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Excellent quote...and thanks for your earlier response. No harm, no foul. And you might want to send this on to the NM Guv, AG, and Supremes. The legislators are too busy putting their fingers in the air.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#114 Aug 25, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
<quoted text>
Just some tongue in cheek. What I find confusing is that no one can say it is Illegal. No one can say it is Legal. They won't make a ruling on the important issue of SSM, but will make an issue on whether someone takes a picture of an event they can't or won't decide is legal or illegal. Seems our executive, legislative and judicial system has met a political issue they are dodging. Hard to make a decision based upon principles and justice? Seems that they have this one topsy turvy.
I disagree. You are conflating two different events.

The issue with the photographer didn't involve the legality of the marriage but the legality of refusing public accommodation based on sexual orientation, which is a crime.

In the case of marriage being legal or illegal they best guess from the courts is the law doesn't exclude SSM. It doesn't grant it true, but it also doesn't deny SSM.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#115 Aug 25, 2013
Not conflating or configuring anything. They can rule on discrimination based on sexual orientation, and over a photograph. The issue was a Christian photographer who did not want to photograph their "commitment ceremony". The Supremes found it easy to rule on that:

" In refusing to photograph the ceremony, Elane Photography violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act in the same way that it would have if the company had refused to photograph an inter-racial wedding, the New Mexico Supreme Court said."

"Justice Richard C. Bosson, writing in concurrence, said that the case “provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice.” In addition, the case “teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”

Seems that coming to a decision on a photography studio for these reasons and not deciding on the same grounds for SSM is the height of...Sorry, am at a loss for words. Seems that politics has left a nasty taste in my mouth. The irony is incredible.

So the Supremes seem able to rule on whether a couple has a right to have their ceremony photographed without being the subject of discrimination. But the legality of SSM which the Supremes could have approved on the same basic grounds is not to be.

Sorry for my political naivete and my cynical sense of the absurd.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#116 Aug 25, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
Not conflating or configuring anything. They can rule on discrimination based on sexual orientation, and over a photograph. The issue was a Christian photographer who did not want to photograph their "commitment ceremony". The Supremes found it easy to rule on that:
" In refusing to photograph the ceremony, Elane Photography violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act in the same way that it would have if the company had refused to photograph an inter-racial wedding, the New Mexico Supreme Court said."
"Justice Richard C. Bosson, writing in concurrence, said that the case “provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice.” In addition, the case “teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”
Seems that coming to a decision on a photography studio for these reasons and not deciding on the same grounds for SSM is the height of...Sorry, am at a loss for words. Seems that politics has left a nasty taste in my mouth. The irony is incredible.
So the Supremes seem able to rule on whether a couple has a right to have their ceremony photographed without being the subject of discrimination. But the legality of SSM which the Supremes could have approved on the same basic grounds is not to be.
Sorry for my political naivete and my cynical sense of the absurd.
no apologies needed. And FYI I live in a State that elected for governor the CEO of a Medical group who oversaw the biggest medicare scam in the nations history.

Wanna talk the irony of government paying for the best and the brightest in that situation!

oy vey
What

Albuquerque, NM

#117 Aug 26, 2013
more evidence does the public need to understand that the legal system is broken. They have failed us and so have our politicians by not allowing the people to vote on the issue. Like thieves in the night they turn their backs on the law, enforce only those which they agree with and leave 33 county clerks holding the bag to decide the issue. Heathens.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#119 Aug 26, 2013
What wrote:
more evidence does the public need to understand that the legal system is broken. They have failed us and so have our politicians by not allowing the people to vote on the issue. Like thieves in the night they turn their backs on the law, enforce only those which they agree with and leave 33 county clerks holding the bag to decide the issue. Heathens.
People should be allowed to vote on whom is allowed to get married ?

How about people voting on whether black Americans should be allowed to marry ?

How about people voting on whether Jewish Americans should be allowed to marry ?

How about people voting on whether Catholic Americans should be allowed to marry ?

How about people voting on whether Irish-Americans should be allowed to marry ?

That's what you want ? People should be alloed to vote on these things ?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#120 Aug 26, 2013
What wrote:
more evidence does the public need to understand that the legal system is broken. They have failed us and so have our politicians by not allowing the people to vote on the issue. Like thieves in the night they turn their backs on the law, enforce only those which they agree with and leave 33 county clerks holding the bag to decide the issue. Heathens.
Now about voting on civil rights:
SCOTUS Majority opinion:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

ARTICLE VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#121 Aug 26, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
People should be allowed to vote on whom is allowed to get married ?
How about people voting on whether black Americans should be allowed to marry ?
How about people voting on whether Jewish Americans should be allowed to marry ?
How about people voting on whether Catholic Americans should be allowed to marry ?
How about people voting on whether Irish-Americans should be allowed to marry ?
That's what you want ? People should be alloed to vote on these things ?
And if they want to make it a question of deviant behavior where is the push to ban marriage for people with OCD? Thieves rapists and murderers?

Base marriage on Procreation? IOW redefine the role of our mothers and grandmothers in their marriages to nothing but breeding bitches.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

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) Wed Try again 8,751
A star born here said the people here don't lea... Tue 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