NM county told to issue same-sex marr...

NM county told to issue same-sex marriage licenses

There are 27 comments on the www.newstimes.com story from Aug 26, 2013, titled NM county told to issue same-sex marriage licenses. In it, www.newstimes.com reports that:

An Albuquerque judge on Monday ordered the clerk of New Mexico's most populous county to join two other counties in the state in issuing marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.newstimes.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#21 Aug 28, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
But we all know had the issue been pushed 10 years ago, they legislature would have quickly passed a law banning same-sex couples from marrying.
I get being cautious in approaching it, what I don't get is in that all the years since Baehr, no one who was inclined to oppose same sex marriage even without anyone insisting on it, took one look at how this law was written and didn't say to themselves, we got a big problem.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#22 Aug 28, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I would guess they were waiting for the right moment, and the DOMA decision provided them with the opportunity they were looking for.
We can 2nd guess what happened & why, but at the end of the day they are getting marriage equality in NM, so I'm satisfied.
Me too:-)

Though I'm certain a poster with the nic GTF is not happy at all!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#23 Aug 28, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I hadn't looked into the actual wording of the law and now that I have, it just amazes me anyone would read that and say, y'up, that bans same sex marriage.
That's because you're not an anti-gay Republican!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#24 Aug 28, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
That's because you're not an anti-gay Republican!
I wrote a master's thesis on the suspension of disbelief and I still can't wrap my head around it. While I imagine this wasn't the original intent of those that penned the law, but what they wrote is what they wrote. I still can't see how anyone can say that it actually prohibited same sex marriages at any point since it went into effect.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#25 Aug 29, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I wrote a master's thesis on the suspension of disbelief and I still can't wrap my head around it. While I imagine this wasn't the original intent of those that penned the law, but what they wrote is what they wrote. I still can't see how anyone can say that it actually prohibited same sex marriages at any point since it went into effect.
They simply believe that it was the "common understanding" of marriage at the time the law was written. That the law is/was assumed to mean marriage is between a man & a woman unless it specifically states otherwise.

That's actually they same logic used in the Baker v Nelson decision in 1972, and the SCOTUS at the time agreed with them.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#26 Aug 29, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
They simply believe that it was the "common understanding" of marriage at the time the law was written. That the law is/was assumed to mean marriage is between a man & a woman unless it specifically states otherwise.
That's actually they same logic used in the Baker v Nelson decision in 1972, and the SCOTUS at the time agreed with them.
I get the common understanding at the time and while Baker had been shot down, he had inspired copycats, including in their neighbor to the north Colorado, where a similar neutering of marriage laws had already taken place. How could these folk who shared this common understanding of marriage not notice just how radically they were about to redefine it? Then you toss in a few decades of rumination on what they had actually done and you begin if there's something in the water. The state sitting closest to Hawaii when they set off the Baehr decision in 93 was New Mexico. The same legal situation existed in New Mexico as it did in Hawaii. A neutered marriage requirement and suspect classification on the basis of gender and sexual orientation. Common understanding of something different can't even survive rational basis scrutiny when you've deliberately done the opposite. It's just amazing to me that it's taken this long for somebody to finally notice.

“Not everything that shines...”

Since: Aug 13

Hatch, NM

#27 Aug 30, 2013
a Right for the people and by the people. May it have better luck than the ones we now have.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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 Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) 5 hr juan 6,880
News Say it in six words (Jul '08) Jul 24 Richies Cool Man ... 8,812
News State senator: Governor should call special ses... Jul 23 justice is just a... 1
News Judge Calls State Incompetent & in Contempt Jul 23 justice is just a... 1
News APNewsBreak: New Mexico spaceport authority dir... Jul 20 Julie F 2
News Former governor: Europeans 'aghast' at Trump Jul 18 hotincleveland 1
News Valle del Sol Golf management locked out - Ruid... (Mar '11) Jul 10 garner 21
More from around the web