Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 12-19-2013, 01:52 PM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,043,899 times
Reputation: 8526

Advertisements

Doing what's right, one state at a time.

Thumbs up, NM.

 
Old 12-19-2013, 01:59 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,046,534 times
Reputation: 4828
A distillation of the ruling:


“All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness ... When government is alleged to have threatened any of these rights, it is the responsibility of the courts to interpret and apply the protections of the Constitution...

Consistent with our constitutional responsibility to determine whether legislation offends the New Mexico Constitution, the question we must answer is whether the State of New Mexico may decline to recognize civil marriages between same-gender couples and therefore deprive them of the rights, protections, and responsibilities available to opposite-gender married couples without violating the New Mexico Constitution...

New Mexico may neither constitutionally deny same-gender couples the right to marry nor deprive them of the rights, protections, and responsibilities of marriage laws, unless the proponents of the legislation—the opponents of same-gender marriage—prove that the discrimination caused by the legislation is “substantially related to an important government interest...

Legislation must advance a state interest that is separate and apart from the classification itself. It is inappropriate to define the governmental interest as maintaining only opposite-gender marriages, just as it was inappropriate to define the governmental interest as maintaining same-race marriages in Loving v. Virginia. Therefore, the purported governmental interest of preventing the deinstitutionalization of marriage, which is nothing more than an argument to maintain only opposite-gender marriages, cannot be an important governmental interest under the Constitution...

Prohibiting same-gender marriages is not substantially related to the governmental interests advanced by the parties opposing same-gender marriage or to the purposes we have identified. Therefore, barring individuals from marrying and depriving them of the rights, protections, and responsibilities of civil marriage solely because of their sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause ... We hold that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections, and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law."


http://www.scribd.com/doc/192566307/...for-New-Mexico
 
Old 12-19-2013, 02:04 PM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,651,452 times
Reputation: 1672
Approximately 38% of the US population now live in equality states.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 02:09 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,414 posts, read 10,452,479 times
Reputation: 4304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilt11 View Post
Your title could use a correction. Might I suggest:

Another state basterdizes the meaning of marriage

New Mexico says to hell with the real definition of marriage
What is the real definition of marriage? Biblical? Procreative? Financial? The cannot do it right the first time, so rinse and repeat till you get it right marriage, aka divorce? And who makes the decision on who can marry? Your church? Your bible? Should only gay people be precluded the right to marry and the protections afforded a simple federal marriage license, or should old people, sterile people and atheists be precluded the rights to marriage? Should only those who believe in your GOD be allowed to marry, as long as they are straight? Answer all of those and tell me why only gays are to be singled out and denied marriage.


Congratulations to New Mexico for treating all of its citizens equally and granting gay couples the same rights as straight couples. Equality is not real if any citizen is singled out for less than full equal rights and privileges.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 02:12 PM
 
1,509 posts, read 2,416,465 times
Reputation: 1554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilt11 View Post
Your title could use a correction. Might I suggest:

Another state basterdizes the meaning of marriage

New Mexico says to hell with the real definition of marriage
The fact that I didn't have to pay my mother in-law in livestock to marry her daughter, that our marriage is legal despite my being African-American under North Carolina's old racial purity laws, and that her legal rights weren't subsumed by me upon our marriage is a pretty good indication that the definition of marriage has already changed a few times.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 02:17 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,414 posts, read 10,452,479 times
Reputation: 4304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilt11 View Post
Um actually it does. You twisted the meaning of marriage, man and woman, to something perverse. In no way shape or form does two fem dudes and two pats equal man and woman. Never has, never will. So because some homos feel left out and feel bad, we have to change the meaning of things to suit them apparently. Ridiculous.
Dude, explain in an adult manner how your marriage would be altered if Tom and Dave got married, Liz and Beth or Bob and Debi. Does it matter to you if atheist get married or sterile/senior citizens get married? Why does the qualification have to be straight when having children is not required for the validity of a marriage to exist in the first place and none, zero of the 1049 federally granted rights that go with marriage have anything to do with children or children being a qualifying factor for those rights.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,261 posts, read 14,115,947 times
Reputation: 9895
The judge even addressed the procreation angle.
Quote:
None of the parties dispute the fact that children benefit from stable familyrelationships. However, the history of New Mexico’s marriage statutes does not support thecontention that the overriding purpose of Chapter 40 is “responsible procreation and childrearing.” Our review of the marriage statutes dating back to 1862 has not revealed anylanguage, either implicit or explicit, that requires applicants for a marriage license to attestto their ability or intention to conceive children through sexual relationships. Counsel for the opponents of same-gender marriage also cannot cite to any such language.
{31}
Fertility has never been a condition of marriage, nor has infertility ever been aspecific ground for divorce. Beginning in 1884, a divorce could only be granted on specificgrounds, which at the time only included “adultery, cruel or inhuman treatment and abandonment.” 1884 Compiled Laws of New Mexico, Title X, ch. II, § 998. In 1915,“impotency” was added as another specified ground for divorce, 1915 Compiled Laws of New Mexico, ch. LV, § 2773, but neither infertility nor unwillingness to have children hasever been specific grounds for divorce.
NM Supreme Court Decision affirming Marriage Equality for New Mexico
 
Old 12-19-2013, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,456 posts, read 33,144,206 times
Reputation: 7594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
Approximately 38% of the US population now live in equality states.
Approximately 38% of the US population now live in immoral states.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 03:02 PM
 
1,509 posts, read 2,416,465 times
Reputation: 1554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Approximately 38% of the US population now live in immoral states.
Personally I find the denial of a civil right to a group based on invidious discrimination to be immoral. Based on the math, that'd be 62 percent of the US still immoral.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Albany, NY
724 posts, read 631,151 times
Reputation: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by garnetpalmetto View Post
Personally I find the denial of a civil right to a group based on invidious discrimination to be immoral. Based on the math, that'd be 62 percent of the US still immoral.
We'll be down to 0%, sooner rather than later.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top