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

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 clause's application to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships is unresolved. Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed laws and constitutional amendments that defined marriage as consisting solely of different-sex couples. Most explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. Same-sex marriage is legal in 16 states (in CA, CT, IA, MA, NJ by court decision; in DE, HI, IL, MN, NH, NY, RI and VT by the state legislature; and in ME, MD and WA by popular vote), as well as the District of Columbia. In August 2007, a federal appeals court held that the clause did require 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.[SUP][18][/SUP] Another federal appeals court held differently in April 2011 in a Louisiana case, Adar v. Smith.[SUP][19]

[/SUP]In 2013, two gay men successfully sued to get their out-of-state marriage recognized in Ohio despite a state ban and they are at the forefront of what supporters and experts believe will be a rush of similar lawsuits seeking to enforce this constitutional right. John Arthur of Cincinnati, who is dying of Lou Gehrig's disease, won the right to be listed as married on his death certificate and to have his partner of more than 20 years listed as his surviving spouse. The couple were originally married in Maryland, with federal district Judge Timothy Black ruling their marriage legal in the state of Ohio.[SUP][20][/SUP]

The case law is still in motion.

 

[ballen0351]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.