# New Mexico becomes the 17th US State to legalize same-sex marriage.



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2013)

The New Mexico Supreme Court in a unanimous decision today legalized same sex marriage, citing the State Constitution's "Equal Protection Clause". This makes New Mexico the 17th US State to legalize Same Sex marriage.

For reference here is that clause: 


> Sec. 18. [Due process; equal protection;sex discrimination.]
> No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws. Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person. (As amended November 7, 1972, effective July 1, 1973).



Also for comparison, here is the United States Constitution's own "Equal Protection" clause, found in the text of the 14th Amendment, Section 1:



> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; _nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_.



hmmmm.




> The unanimous ruling ordered county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to qualified same-sex couples. "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," of the  state's constitution," said the 31-page ruling from all five state  justices.
> "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, the ruling said.



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...me-sex-couples-have-right-to-marry/?hpt=us_c2


The dominoes are falling......


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 19, 2013)

Of the 17 how many were voted on by the people and how many were done by court order?  I have no issue with a state making it legal if its what the people want.  I do not like a state court deciding for the people.  Maryland voted and approved Gay marriage I have no problem with that but 5, 7, or 9 judges shouldnt speak for millions


----------



## elder999 (Dec 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Of the 17 how many were voted on by the people and how many were done by court order?  I have no issue with a state making it legal if its what the people want.  I do not like a state court deciding for the people.  Maryland voted and approved Gay marriage I have no problem with that but 5, 7, or 9 judges shouldnt speak for millions



You may not "like it," but that's, _like_, the very *definition* of the word *judge*.....just sayin'


----------



## granfire (Dec 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Of the 17 how many were voted on by the people and how many were done by court order?  I have no issue with a state making it legal if its what the people want.  I do not like a state court deciding for the people.  Maryland voted and approved Gay marriage I have no problem with that but 5, 7, or 9 judges shouldnt speak for millions



doesn't matter.

like other things that are right but not popular. Sometimes the big wigs need to earn their keep.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 19, 2013)

Its all fun and game until they "JUDGE" to detain hundreds of thousands of American citizens of Japanese decent but whatever floats your boat


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 19, 2013)

elder999 said:


> You may not "like it," but that's, _like_, the very *definition* of the word *judge*.....just sayin'


Judges are not supposed to create laws only judge laws on the books.  If there is no law regarding gay marriage then people for it need to get a law passed.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2013)

In this case, the judges didn't create a law. They ruled that an existing law was being enforced unequally.

My take on this is that -this- ruling will be the one that is cited in the eventual USSC case given the verbiage is the same in both the state and national constitutions.

This is the same law that allows me to remain in the 'married' category regardless of which state I am in.

Maine btw was the one where the general public voted for it.  Maryland was passed as a law, and the law upheld by the voters.  So 2 out of 17 were by public vote.
6 were by court decision.
The rest were legislature decisions where the elected representatives made the call.

Personally, I'd prefer these things to go by popular vote, but in some cases the popular choice isn't the right choice.  Case in point, integration was not popular in the South in the 60's and if it had been left up to the general populace we'd still see those "whites only" signs there.



In Garden State Equality v. Dow, the State of New Jersey lost it's case when the NJ Supreme Court ruled "that the parallel legal structures created by the New Jersey Legislature therefore no longer provide same sex couples with equal access to the rights and benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples, violating the mandate of Lewis and the New Jersey Constitution's *equal protection guarantee.*"

same wording.

In looking at the cases decided by court decision, they are not creating a new law, but looking at the existing law of "Equality" and correcting an inequality. 

At this point 1/3 of US States allow same-sex marriage.  2/3 do not.  We have a state of inequality. A same sex couple, legally married in NY, NJ or NM can move between those states and be accepted as married. Should they go to TX, AZ or OH however, they are not.  This is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection Clause" as well as USC Article IV, Section 1:



> Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.


My marriage is recorded in NY. If I move to TX, TX will recognize it as per their own state constitution which differs to the federal constitution which clearly says it's to be recognized.

Eventually, this will become case law and there will be many many unhappy people.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 20, 2013)

Like I said in another thread.  When a minority attempts to bully the majority the minority better be prepared for push back.  In this case legislature or popular vote is the only way to go.  You pass it by votes they way laws are supposed to be passed people at least get to have their say and the chips fall where they may.  You let a few judges decide the fight will keep raging on and on and people will get more upset.  Not even about the topic anymore but by the process itself

For example here in MD we voted it passed by like 52% or so.  You dont hear anything about it anymore.  Had the courts done it they would still be fighting it


----------



## granfire (Dec 20, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Like I said in another thread.  When a minority attempts to bully the majority the minority better be prepared for push back.  In this case legislature or popular vote is the only way to go.  You pass it by votes they way laws are supposed to be passed people at least get to have their say and the chips fall where they may.  You let a few judges decide the fight will keep raging on and on and people will get more upset.  Not even about the topic anymore but by the process itself
> 
> For example here in MD we voted it passed by like 52% or so.  You dont hear anything about it anymore.  Had the courts done it they would still be fighting it



you skipped over the thing with desegregation...
or womens right to vote....neither particular popular....(considering that Wyoming was nearly denied statehood, because they would not eliminate women's voting rights...)


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 20, 2013)

granfire said:


> you skipped over the thing with desegregation...
> or womens right to vote....neither particular popular....(considering that Wyoming was nearly denied statehood, because they would not eliminate women's voting rights...)


I didn'tskip anything.  Being a woman and being black is not like being gay #1 and #2 both of which wwould have happened on their own in due time.  Had they allowed it to occur naturally I'm positive it would have occurred with much less violence.  It may have taken an extra few years but lives would have been spared


----------



## granfire (Dec 20, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I didn'tskip anything.  Being a woman and being black is not like being gay #1 and #2 both of which wwould have happened on their own in due time.  Had they allowed it to occur naturally I'm positive it would have occurred with much less violence.  It may have taken an extra few years but lives would have been spared



You are from up North, Sweet.
We'd still have the 'Whites Only fountains! 
It was not too long ago, Alabama but it up for a vote: Should the prohibition on mixed marriages be stricken from the books....
The majority did not vote to eliminate this law. 

You hve to crack a few eggs to make an omlette.
Allowing a minority the same rights as the majority is hardly dictatorship.
Unlike equal schooling and access to public facilities one does not have to get married, nor be gay.
But there is no reason to not allow homosexuals to marry. 
it does not affect you if they do, same as it does not affect you if black and white people get married! Or White people, Or purple ones. 

Marriage is a business contract. It never was anything else. It never was about love, only about economical regulations. And as such it is unfathomable to deny this form of contract to part of the population.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 20, 2013)

granfire said:


> You are from up North, Sweet.
> We'd still have the 'Whites Only fountains!
> It was not too long ago, Alabama but it up for a vote: Should the prohibition on mixed marriages be stricken from the books....
> The majority did not vote to eliminate this law.
> ...



No you don't its already started my state voted by popular vote to approve Gay Marriage.  And there is almost zero chatter anymore in opposition. When the legislature passed it first the opposition was extremely vocal and got it on the ballet.  Once they lost by popular vote they gave up and moved on.  Sometimes all people want is a change to voice their opinion.  I'm positive if left to the people to decide in 10 years or less almost all states would pass it on their own.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2013)

NY passed it by legislature, not vote.  I don't hear any grumbling either.

You're right, given enough time it would phase in, but during that time, how many people will be denied the right, and as a result lose the 1,000+ benefits that come with it? How many loving couples would face financial ruin, how many survivors will lose access to their kids, homes and belongings? etc.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 20, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> NY passed it by legislature, not vote.  I don't hear any grumbling either.
> 
> You're right, given enough time it would phase in, but during that time, how many people will be denied the right, and as a result lose the 1,000+ benefits that come with it? How many loving couples would face financial ruin, how many survivors will lose access to their kids, homes and belongings? etc.



Better then the alternative.  Pushing it too soon on people  and having  backlash either through violence or legislation.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2013)

While I don't like the violence, I'm unaware of massive gay witch hunts and murder spree's occuring as a result of these states recognizing equal rights. I think most people are bored of it all at this point. I think the next several states moving to the 21st century will be non-events met with a ho-hum, until we get down to the last few when it'll become a running gag: Which US State will be the last to grow up?

I predict it will be Utah, Texas, Arkansas or Louisiana.


----------



## granfire (Dec 20, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Better then the alternative.  Pushing it too soon on people  and having  backlash either through violence or legislation.



You only have a huge backlash with violence if the climate allows people to behave badly, you know like the civil rights situation in the 60s, the peers not convicting the accused of the obvious crimes....

You don't get to violate your fellow man because you feel like it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2013)

[h=3]Polling - Wikipedia[/h] Polling in states that have legalized same-sex marriage has shown  that a majority of respondents generally agree the legalization of same  sex marriage has had no effect on them.
 A survey done by Public Policy Polling  of 1,539 registered Massachusetts voters in May 2013 found that 60% of  respondents claimed the legalization of same-sex marriage had "no  impact" on their personal lives, with an additional 25% citing a  "positive impact". Only 15% of respondents claimed the legalization of  same-sex marriage had a "negative impact" on their personal lives.[SUP][196][/SUP]
 A survey done by Public Policy Polling  of 668 registered Iowa voters in July 2013 found that 63% of  respondents claimed the legalization of same-sex marriage had "no  impact" on their personal lives, with an additional 11% citing a  "positive impact". The 26% citing a "negative impact" was driven by  "very conservative" voters, of whom 70% said the legalization of  same-sex marriage had a "negative impact". All other political  ideologies agreed the legalization of same-sex marriage has had no  impact on their personal lives.[SUP][197][/SUP]
 A survey done by Public Policy Polling  of 953 registered Maine voters in August 2013 found that 62% of  respondents claimed the legalization of same-sex marriage had "no  impact" on their personal lives, with an additional 18% citing a  "positive impact". Only 20% of respondents claimed the legalization of  same-sex marriage had a "negative impact" on their personal lives.[SUP][198][/SUP]


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 20, 2013)

granfire said:


> You only have a huge backlash with violence if the climate allows people to behave badly, you know like the civil rights situation in the 60s, the peers not convicting the accused of the obvious crimes....
> 
> You don't get to violate your fellow man because you feel like it.


So people are civilized enough not to get violent but not civilized enough to pass it eventually.  Violence isn't really my concern but I could see pushing it too far to fast and I could see Constitutional changes banning it all together.  Just from spite.  I could care less about gays getting married my opposition comes from it being rammed down peoples throats with no say.  A hand full of judges making fundamental changes to society and people not getting a say in the matter.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2013)

*Polls in 2013*

 A September Quinnipiac University poll found that 56% of American  adults and 57% of registered voters supported same-sex marriage. Only  36% of both groups were opposed.[SUP][13][/SUP]
 A July 10&#8211;14 poll by Gallup found support for gay marriage at 54%, a  record high, and double the support of 27% Gallup first measured when  the question was asked in 1996.[SUP][14][/SUP]
 A July poll by USA Today found that 55% of Americans supported gay marriage while 40% did not.[SUP][15][/SUP]
 A May 9 _Washington Post_-ABC News poll found that 55% of Americans supported gay marriage while 40% did not.[SUP][16][/SUP]
 A March 20&#8211;24 CBS News Poll found that 53% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, 39% opposed it, and 8% were undecided.[SUP][17][/SUP]  The same poll also found that 33% of Americans who thought same-sex  couples should be allowed to legally marry said they once held the  opposite view and had changed their opinion.
 A March 7&#8211;10 _Washington Post_-ABC News[SUP][18][/SUP]  poll found that 58% of Americans support same-sex marriage while 36%  opposed. The poll indicated that 52% of GOP-leaning independents under  50 years old supported gay marriage.[SUP][19][/SUP]
 A March Quinnipiac University poll of voters found 47% supported same-sex marriage and 43% were opposed.[SUP][20][/SUP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 20, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> [h=3]Polls in 2013[/h] A September Quinnipiac University poll found that 56% of American  adults and 57% of registered voters supported same-sex marriage. Only  36% of both groups were opposed.[SUP][13][/SUP]
> A July 10&#8211;14 poll by Gallup found support for gay marriage at 54%, a  record high, and double the support of 27% Gallup first measured when  the question was asked in 1996.[SUP][14][/SUP]
> A July poll by USA Today found that 55% of Americans supported gay marriage while 40% did not.[SUP][15][/SUP]
> A May 9 _Washington Post_-ABC News poll found that 55% of Americans supported gay marriage while 40% did not.[SUP][16][/SUP]
> ...


Right like I said so do it the right way let people vote it in end all the arguments.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So people ate civilized enough not to get violent but not civilized enough to pass it eventually.  Violence isn't really my concern but I could see pushing it too far to fast and I could see Constitutional changes banning it all together.  Just from spite.  I could care less about gays getting married my opposition comes from it being rammed down peoples throats with no say.  A hand full of judges making fundamental changes to society and people not getting a say in the matter.



But the thing is, the people are getting a say.   The legislatures pay attention to the polls. They are in constant contact with the active-participating voters. I've called my rep at least 10 times. (The last time to congratulate him for becoming mayor of Buffalo when Obama referred to him as such on their last visit here. His staff was not amused. ) 

Judges interpret law, and base their interpretations of law on past case law and current views.  A Supreme Court judge during the 1800's made the comment that something might be legal then, but illegal later, as times and views change. The law didn't change, but how it was viewed did. He was referring to slavery, but his comments apply to any current law.  The EPC has been cited as NOT applying to gays. Now it's being cited as applying.  The law hasn't changed, just the interpretation of it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 20, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> But the thing is, the people are getting a say.   The legislatures pay attention to the polls. They are in constant contact with the active-participating voters. I've called my rep at least 10 times. (The last time to congratulate him for becoming mayor of Buffalo when Obama referred to him as such on their last visit here. His staff was not amused. )
> 
> Judges interpret law, and base their interpretations of law on past case law and current views.  A Supreme Court judge during the 1800's made the comment that something might be legal then, but illegal later, as times and views change. The law didn't change, but how it was viewed did. He was referring to slavery, but his comments apply to any current law.  The EPC has been cited as NOT applying to gays. Now it's being cited as applying.  The law hasn't changed, just the interpretation of it.


That's where judges are wrong. They are not supposed to interpret law by the public views but by the word of the law and the constitution  That's it nothing more or less.  That's why the courts are no longer a real check or balance anymore its about what party can stack the courtsto get what they want when they know they ccan't get it passed.  That's not the intent of the judicial branch to stack the deck by political party.  Doing it that way makes laws to wishy washy.  The Supreme court could rule tomorrow Gay marriage across the land.  Then a new set of judges stack the deck and say yeah nevermind.  So do it right and pass laws not rule by judicial orders.  I'm not even opposes to legislation passing it as you said they are supposed to represent the people.  Judges don't represent anyone but the party that put them there


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2013)

Not disagreeing with your assessment. You know my views towards a strict letter of the law nothing more nothing less view on Constitutional matters.   In this particular case, I find myself in agreement with the judges, as I read the EPC as applying the same regardless of pairing.

"Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person."

I see no "except if you're gay" wiggle room in there.


----------



## Tenacious_Red (Dec 20, 2013)

Yay for NM! I was actually excited for this to pass, because now same sex partners can get legal benefits etc. I don't believe marriage makes a partnership, "official" for any sex, but it sure helps when you lose a loved one or someone is sick etc etc. 

Side story, and has me boggled:

My co-worker who is open about her romantic partner in everyday conversation, she is 50 and they met in college, was not excited about the news when I revealed it to her yesterday. Apparently she does not identify herself as gay or bi (she dated men before her partner) and was kind of off-setted about the law being passed. I felt like maybe I stepped on toes bringing it up in light conversation, but I also find this very strange behavior and I'm confused now.


----------



## crushing (Dec 20, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Like I said in another thread.  When a minority attempts to bully the majority the minority better be prepared for push back.it



There is no bullying.  Same-sex marriage has not become mandatory.  Everyone still maintains the right to not get same-sex married if they so choose.  To make the ridiculous argument that allowing same-sex marriage is akin to bullying is does a disservice to actual bullying.  Nice attempt to ride on the recent anti-bullying campaigns coattails on that one though.


----------



## Carol (Dec 20, 2013)

Tenacious_Red said:


> Yay for NM! I was actually excited for this to pass, because now same sex partners can get legal benefits etc. I don't believe marriage makes a partnership, "official" for any sex, but it sure helps when you lose a loved one or someone is sick etc etc.
> 
> Side story, and has me boggled:
> 
> My co-worker who is open about her romantic partner in everyday conversation, she is 50 and they met in college, was not excited about the news when I revealed it to her yesterday. Apparently she does not identify herself as gay or bi (she dated men before her partner) and was kind of off-setted about the law being passed. I felt like maybe I stepped on toes bringing it up in light conversation, but I also find this very strange behavior and I'm confused now.



Could be a lot of reasons behind her reaction, including the environment (workplace) and the very personal nature of the subject.   Where I am, none of us talk politics in the office, even if its something that directly affects us (such as sequestration).

Personally I've never been crazy about the "Since you are (this label) you must support (this issue) type of conversation.   If I'm the person targeted, it puts me on the defensive....regardless of whether or not I agree with the premise.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 20, 2013)

The part that doesn't get mentioned in this, and the very genesis of the case, is that the New Mexico statute on marriage doesn't mention "man and women," or "men and women," it specifies, and has always specified, "_persons_."  A court clerk issued a few same-sex marriage licenses about a decade ago, and this is the ultimate result.

The bigger issue is, of course, as Bob pointed out, the "full-faith and credit" clauses. States simply aren't going to have much choice in accepting gay marriage and extending rights and privileges to same-sex couples who come to their states after being married elsewhere-it is the law of the land, after all..


----------



## Tenacious_Red (Dec 20, 2013)

Carol said:


> Could be a lot of reasons behind her reaction, including the environment (workplace) and the very personal nature of the subject.   Where I am, none of us talk politics in the office, even if its something that directly affects us (such as sequestration).
> 
> Personally I've never been crazy about the "Since you are (this label) you must support (this issue) type of conversation.   If I'm the person targeted, it puts me on the defensive....regardless of whether or not I agree with the premise.




No topics are off the rail here as we are a heavy law and court environment. With that said, I asked her today if I crossed a boundary, and the reason she doesn't identify with being gay/bi is that she just refuses labels and the marriage issue is touchy because her partner wants it and not her. And I was being naïve and presumptuous which seems to be more common these days. I have to get out of the cave.


----------



## Carol (Dec 20, 2013)

Tenacious_Red said:


> No topics are off the rail here as we are a heavy law and court environment. With that said, I asked her today if I crossed a boundary, and the reason she doesn't identify with being gay/bi is that she just refuses labels and the marriage issue is touchy because her partner wants it and not her. And I was being naïve and presumptuous which seems to be more common these days. I have to get out of the cave.



I can see where that would make for a more open environment.   Glad there's no lasting damage with your colleague.  Good that you work with understanding people.


----------



## Tenacious_Red (Dec 20, 2013)

Carol said:


> I can see where that would make for a more open environment.   Glad there's no lasting damage with your colleague.  Good that you work with understanding people.



Thank you  I have amazing co-workers. All super professional, intelligent and humorous regardless of background. I have not always been able to say such a thing, though perhaps I grew up too and tamed the ego and it was always me to begin with.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 20, 2013)

crushing said:


> There is no bullying.  Same-sex marriage has not become mandatory.  Everyone still maintains the right to not get same-sex married if they so choose.  To make the ridiculous argument that allowing same-sex marriage is akin to bullying is does a disservice to actual bullying.  Nice attempt to ride on the recent anti-bullying campaigns coattails on that one though.



Its bullying in the sense of forcing your opinions and beliefs on others and one incident by itself not a big deal.  But when this law turns into bakers or photographers or Churches being forced to participate in these weddings against their will. Eventually you reach that straw braking camels back moments.  People will only "tolerate" so much before they push back.  So while a straight person may not care if two guys get marries because it has no effect on them they may start to care when their uncle or neighbor gets sued for not making a wedding cake or taking pictures at a wedding or their church gets sued for not allowing the wedding on its property.  

I myself fall into that category. I don't care who gets married it's only recognized by the state not by God so do what you will.  I get pissed when its made legally through the back door.  It then forces other states to push back and make state constitutional bans on it in retaliation against courts that made it legal.  Now you have some states that allow it and some that don't.  So now what's the fed do?  Force states to so it?  They have kinda set themselves up for a showdown and left the states an open door with this whole marijuana thing. States are saying we don't care what the fed says we are doing what we want.  So how far do they push the issue?  They could save all this trouble by letting it work itself out.  Allowing the population to come around on its own.  It's already started looking at poll numbers.  Doing it by court order can be overturned later.  Look at abortion its still an issue every time a new Supreme Court justice comes up.  Why because the legislation has never been passes so you pick the right one or two judges and it could be over turned again.  Same with gay marriage.  Supreme Court passes it and 10 years later they stack the courts and boom now what its overturned and we have a huge mess.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2013)

The way I look at it, Texas doesn't have to allow same sex marriage any more than they have to allow me to drive on their highways with a New York drivers licence.




> Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public  acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the  Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts,  records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.



Hmm.  

Maybe not allow, but recognize. Maybe.



> [h=2]Application to family law[/h] The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been applied to orders of protection, for which the clause was invoked by the Violence Against Women Act, and child support, for which the enforcement of the clause was spelled out in the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738B).
> 
> 
> Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage  and did not recognize marriage certificates issued in other states for  interracial couples. The full faith and credit clause was never used to  force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.[SUP][17][/SUP] However, the existence of a common-law marriage  in a sister state (still available in nine states and the District of  Columbia) has been recognized in divorce or dissolution of marriage  cases.
> ...



The case law is still in motion.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 20, 2013)

I think they would have to recognize other marriage licenses from other states.  I don't see how you couldn't.  I don't think they have to allow their state to do it but then again what do I know we don't recognize a lot of things your medical marijuana card in you state means zero to me in mine,  protective orders at one time didn't transfer over.  Your Conceal carry permit in your state means nothing here.  So who knows.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 20, 2013)

Oklahoma to issue a revised birth certificate showing both adoptive parents of a child born in Oklahoma who had been adopted by a same-sex couple married in another state.[18]

This is odd to me.  Why would you reissue a birth certificate?  Adoption papers are the legal document showing parental rights.  A birth certificate with two guys or girls is well kinda impossible.  Do they reissue birth certificates on all adoptions?


----------



## elder999 (Dec 20, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Do they reissue birth certificates on all adoptions?



Yes. That's pretty much what "adoption" is.

You want something really freaky: A man who has a sex-change operation is reissued a birth certificate showing that he's "female." So that person can legally marry a man in all 50 states in the union.....


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 20, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Yes. That's pretty much what "adoption" is.


That's silly they are not the "birth" parents.  Legal adoption papers are what should be required not a Birth certificate.  
The Birth certificate should be kept on record showing the actual Birth parent.


----------



## crushing (Dec 20, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> People will only "tolerate" so much before they push back.



Good point.  I don't think your concern regarding the possibility of a 'Christian Brotherhood' uprising is completely unfounded.   Look at the furor created after a simple business decision regarding a single reality TV celebrity.  At the same time, it doesn't seem right to give in to such an authoritarian brotherhood and their Sharia-esque demands.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 20, 2013)

crushing said:


> Good point.  I don't think your concern regarding the possibility of a 'Christian Brotherhood' uprising is completely unfounded.   Look at the furor created after a simple business decision regarding a single reality TV celebrity.  At the same time, it doesn't seem right to give in to such an authoritarian brotherhood and their Sharia-esque demands.


Its not the extremists groups I'm talking about. They are easy to deal with and lock then up.  It's the every day people that will start to get pissed when as Mark levin calls it "tyranny of the minority" starts.  Like you said look at the uproar over a TV show suspending a guy.


----------

