New Mexico Supreme Court says state must recognize gay marriages as a matter of equal protection

posted at 4:11 pm on December 19, 2013 by Allahpundit

I almost wrote that headline as “New Mexico legalizes gay marriage,” but since there actually are states where the legislature has made this move instead of having had it imposed on them by the courts, it’s worth being precise.

The opinion’s only 31 pages long and a chunk of that is devoted to skippable procedural blather, but if you’re pressed for time you’ll do fine with the summary on page 8. As usual, SSM opponents argued that marriage is an institution built around procreation, which is why it should be exclusive to straights. And as usual, the court ruled against them because no state anywhere makes procreation a condition of marriage between men and women and no state forbids divorce between a married couple simply because they might have children. Many states permit gays to adopt, in fact, further weakening the theory that childrearing is the province of straights only. Marriage is about commitment between the participants, says the court, not about children that that commitment may or may not produce.

With that argument having failed, opponents made another traditional argument: Even if there’s no compelling state interest in limiting marriage to straights, courts usually don’t demand that the state offer a “compelling” reason to justify discriminating among different classes of people. The state could raise taxes on millionaires tomorrow by 50 percent and defend itself by saying “just because” and a court would probably rubber-stamp it. In an equal protection analysis, virtually everything turns on the court first deciding whether the group that’s targeted by the discrimination is a “suspect class” or not. There are a bunch of factors involved in that — whether they’ve suffered a history of discrimination, whether the trait that’s being targeted by the discrimination is core to their identity like race or religion, and whether the group is so politically powerless that the courts need to take extra care to protect their rights because they don’t have the numbers to do it themselves. The last factor is the interesting one here, especially coming a day after A&E bounced the star of one of the most popular shows on American television in sheer terror of the boycott that might ensue if they didn’t. Are gays, a small part of the population, still politically powerless in an age when 17 states now allow gay marriage and the president of the United States boasts that he supports legalizing the practice coast to coast?

Yeah, sort of, says the court. Skip to paragraph 49 on page 22.

Refocusing on the contention that the LGBT community is not politically powerless, we recognize that they have had some recent political success regarding legislation prohibiting discrimination against them. However, we also conclude that effective advocacy for the LGBT community is seriously hindered by their continuing need to overcome the already deep-rooted prejudice against their integration into society, which warrants our application of intermediate scrutiny in this case… The political advocacy of the LGBT community continues to be seriously hindered, as evidenced by the uncontroverted difficulty in determining whether LGBTs are under-represented in positions of political power, because many of them keep their sexual orientation private to avoid hostility, discrimination, and ongoing acts of violence… FBI statistics show that the rates of hate crimes committed against individuals based on sexual orientation have remained relatively constant over the past two decades, although they have risen slightly in the past few years, both in absolute numbers and expressed as a percentage of all types of hate crimes… It is reasonable to expect that the need of LGBTs to keep their sexual orientation private also hinders or suppresses their political activity…

Although the LGBT community has had political success, they have also seen their gains repealed by popular referendums…

At the time this case was argued in October, 2013, only a minority of states had enacted laws identifying “sexual orientation” as a protected class for purposes of antidiscrimination laws. Only six states had recognized the validity of and enacted legislation permitting same-gender marriages, or civil unions, at the time this opinion was filed… Four states, Massachusetts, California, Iowa, and Connecticut, interpreted their respective constitutions to require same-gender marriages… In three states, Maine, Maryland, and Washington, the electorate voted in favor of same-gender marriages… Finally, three states, New Jersey, Illinois, and Colorado, have legislation that grants samegender couples an alternative to civil marriage and makes available to them many of the benefits granted to married couples… The history we have just recounted demonstrates that the members of the LGBT community do not have sufficient political strength to protect themselves from purposeful discrimination.

They’ve gained some political power, in other words, but not enough to disqualify them from “suspect class” status for equal-protection purposes. Once the court makes that move, it’s an easy transition to deciding that no, the state’s “procreation” theory isn’t nearly “compelling” enough to justify limiting marriage to straights only. An obvious question, then: What sort of political gains would the court need to see to conclude that gays are no longer powerless and therefore can fight discriminatory laws on their own through the political process? If half the states end up legalizing gay marriage, is that sufficient? Three quarters? Effectively, I think, there’s no way to lose “suspect class” status once you’ve got it, no matter how much progress you make in convincing the electorate to protect your interests. Legal eagles are invited to correct me, but I don’t think there’s ever been a case of a “suspect class” in America, whether at the state or federal level, being downgraded by a court to non-suspect status because they’ve succeeded so wildly at vindicating their rights in the court of public opinion and at the ballot box. It could happen, I guess — theoretically, the “suspect class” calculus is in part a moving target based on how tolerant society at large is of a particular minority’s rights — but it’s impossible to imagine it happening in practice. The U.S. Supreme Court will long since have ruled that all 50 states must recognize same-sex marriage as a matter of Fourteenth Amendment equal protection before the question of whether gays no longer deserve special judicial protection lands on America’s political radar.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

About as silly as thinking allowing consenting adults to marry will have something to do with pedophilia.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Or arguing that bank robbers benefited from yesterday’s ruling.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 1:44 PM

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 3:26 AM

One of the foundation’s of your positions is your belief that one’s sexual orientation / preference is justification for the application of ‘equal protection’. Yet, you dance around the similar applications of ‘equal protection’ for similar identifications in the cases of bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, incest, and other forms of identifications / identity politics.

It’s clear that since Lawrence v Texas, and just as Justice Scalia predicted, the improper application of ‘equal protection’ as applying in the same manner for one’s self-identification of one’s sexual orientation / preference is also being used by others, most recently polygamists, in order to expand ‘equal protections’.

In the Constitution, there are few absolutes. Even the 1st Amendment right of free speech has limitations. Similar limitations are apparent in other amendments, and I contend that they exist within the 14th Amendment for the same common sense reasons that free speech has some common sense limitations.

There are conditions where ‘equal protections’ do apply. These include race and gender. However, it is a stretch to assume that these protections can extend to every possible ‘self-identification’ or into ‘identity politics’. That opens up a slippery slope that brings the Constitution into a point where it effectively endorses the tyranny of the minority over the majority. It’s not a ‘suicide pact’ and this includes on a societal level.

You have contended that homosexuality isn’t a ‘choice’. We’ve mapped the human genome, but we haven’t found a gene or biological reason as to why some human’s prefer sexual partners of the same gender. Without that, it’s either a conscious or subconscious choice made and influenced by non-biological conditions.

I see no issue with race and gender being subject to ‘equal protections’ because their source is biological. But when it is not biological, and one’s sexual preference, or sexual choice of a partner(s) is a factor, no, that is not entitled to ‘equal protection’ under the Constitution. Because if ‘equal protection’ is that ‘open’, then ANY choice or level of self-identification, then gains ‘equal protection’ and society ultimately is damaged.

It is a mistake for our society to push and expand identity politics – creating an increasing number of ‘self-identities’ and special protections for each. It divides rather than unites us as a people and society. It encourages the tyranny of the minority over the majority…misapplying the protections within the Constitution against a tyranny of the majority.

It is a mistake to apply ‘equal protections’ as widely as is being attempted because doing so will result in damage to society. One cannot control biology (race / gender) – but until there is a clear irrefutable biological link, a ‘gay gene’, homosexuality shouldn’t qualify for ‘equal protection’ any more than incest, polygamy, and bestiality. (Marriage, as controlled by the state, is not absolute – there are limitations in place. ‘Equal protections’ can be argued to eliminate any and all limitations – and that would damage society.)

Athos on December 20, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Or arguing that bank robbers benefited from yesterday’s ruling.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Or arguing that pedophiles did. You were venturing into absurdity and it looks like you’re having a rough go of things these days so because I’m a compassionate person I thought you might need a little company in Nowhere-Near-Realville. :)

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

You were venturing into absurdity and it looks like you’re having a rough go of things these days so because I’m a compassionate person I thought you might need a little company in Nowhere-Near-Realville. :)

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

The mind of a narcissist….creepy to the bitter end. Yikes.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Are states required to follow the US constitution regarding the separation of power between executive, legislative, and judicial? If not then NM is simply ruled by the black robe folks. Don’t need no stinkin Governor or Legislature.

TerryW on December 20, 2013 at 2:18 PM

One of the foundation’s of your positions is your belief that one’s sexual orientation / preference is justification for the application of ‘equal protection’. Yet, you dance around the similar applications of ‘equal protection’ for similar identifications in the cases of bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, incest, and other forms of identifications / identity politics.

I don’t dance around it, I outright reject your contention that an adult sexual orientation (be it heterosexual or homosexual) is in any way related to bigamy, polygamy, bestiality or incest.

It’s clear that since Lawrence v Texas, and just as Justice Scalia predicted, the improper application of ‘equal protection’ as applying in the same manner for one’s self-identification of one’s sexual orientation / preference is also being used by others, most recently polygamists, in order to expand ‘equal protections’.

Scalia’s Lawrence dissent might rank as the most awful thing he’s ever written. Most of what he predicted hasn’t come to pass; the recent decision on polygamy dealt with cohabitation, not bigamy but, hey, anything to advance the narrative. In fact, most of Scalia’s paranoia has been proven wrong. He was right that Lawrence set the stage for gay marriage unless someone can come up with a reason for the prohibition beyond moral disapproval, but his predictions that statues on adult incest, bigamy, bestiality, etc. would not stand hasn’t played out. There have been challenges but those laws still stand in a post-Lawrence world. I guess 1 out of 9 ain’t bad for Scalia on that one.

In the Constitution, there are few absolutes. Even the 1st Amendment right of free speech has limitations. Similar limitations are apparent in other amendments, and I contend that they exist within the 14th Amendment for the same common sense reasons that free speech has some common sense limitations.

Has anyone argued that the equal protection clause is without limitation?

There are conditions where ‘equal protections’ do apply. These include race and gender. However, it is a stretch to assume that these protections can extend to every possible ‘self-identification’ or into ‘identity politics’. That opens up a slippery slope that brings the Constitution into a point where it effectively endorses the tyranny of the minority over the majority. It’s not a ‘suicide pact’ and this includes on a societal level.

Which is why things like immutability and ability to contribute to society are necessary hurdles to heightened protection under the equal protection clause. Adult sexual orientation clears the bar, as does race. If you start to get beyond that into other self-identifications then you’re under rational basis.

You have contended that homosexuality isn’t a ‘choice’.

It isn’t.

We’ve mapped the human genome, but we haven’t found a gene or biological reason as to why some human’s prefer sexual partners of the same gender. Without that, it’s either a conscious or subconscious choice made and influenced by non-biological conditions.

Because sexual orientation probably isn’t controlled strictly by DNA. Things can still be biological while not being strictly a DNA thing. Research epigenetics just a bit.

I see no issue with race and gender being subject to ‘equal protections’ because their source is biological. But when it is not biological, and one’s sexual preference, or sexual choice of a partner(s) is a factor, no, that is not entitled to ‘equal protection’ under the Constitution. Because if ‘equal protection’ is that ‘open’, then ANY choice or level of self-identification, then gains ‘equal protection’ and society ultimately is damaged.

It is a mistake for our society to push and expand identity politics – creating an increasing number of ‘self-identities’ and special protections for each. It divides rather than unites us as a people and society. It encourages the tyranny of the minority over the majority…misapplying the protections within the Constitution against a tyranny of the majority.

It is a mistake to apply ‘equal protections’ as widely as is being attempted because doing so will result in damage to society. One cannot control biology (race / gender) – but until there is a clear irrefutable biological link, a ‘gay gene’, homosexuality shouldn’t qualify for ‘equal protection’ any more than incest, polygamy, and bestiality. (Marriage, as controlled by the state, is not absolute – there are limitations in place. ‘Equal protections’ can be argued to eliminate any and all limitations – and that would damage society.)

Athos on December 20, 2013 at 1:49 PM

If I’m reading this correctly you’re basically saying that homosexuality is a choice and we can’t grant people equal protection for personal choices (except for course religion but that’s another matter). Spend a couple minutes on Google and look at the role of epigenetics on sexual orientation. There some good, recent information to be found. Here’s just one that I turned up

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121211083212.htm

In case you’re wondering identical twins do not share all their epigenetic markers so if that’s what controls sexual orientation you would expect a concordance rate of less than 100% for identical twins when it comes to their sexual orientation.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 2:29 PM

The mind of a narcissist….creepy to the bitter end. Yikes.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Well if you didn’t want to talk about absurd things then why did you bring up pedophilia in the context of this court ruling?

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Well if you didn’t want to talk about absurd things then why did you bring up pedophilia in the context of this court ruling?

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Because Defining Deviancy Down is very relevant to the ruling.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 2:33 PM

As a resident of New Mexico, my husband and I should be allowed to vote on this issue. WE WANT TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE! We’re tired of the liberal judges in Santa Fe running the show…

StarLady on December 20, 2013 at 2:54 PM

I don’t dance around it, I outright reject your contention that an adult sexual orientation (be it heterosexual or homosexual) is in any way related to bigamy, polygamy, bestiality or incest.

That’s the same dishonest spin as coming from those who accused Robertson of linking homosexuality to bestiality in the GQ interview. You know damn well that the linkage between same-sex marriage and polygamy (soon to be the others) is because of the incorrect and overly expansive application of ‘equal protection’ in the effort to force SSM. And it’s not my contention of that expansive application – look at the recent ruling on Utah’s polygamy law. It’s happening.

Has anyone argued that the equal protection clause is without limitation?

You are and have done.

Adult sexual orientation clears the bar, as does race.

Only in your opinion to advance / justify your bias and conclusions. Race and gender, yes. Sexual preference / choice, no.

If I’m reading this correctly you’re basically saying that homosexuality is a choice and we can’t grant people equal protection for personal choices (except for course religion but that’s another matter). Spend a couple minutes on Google and look at the role of epigenetics on sexual orientation.

What I am saying is the ‘equal protection’ has limitations. Homosexuality or any other sexual preference is insufficient in my opinion to rise beyond those limitations. Therefore, ‘equal protection’ is incorrectly and invalidly used as a ‘justification’ to assert a ‘right of marriage’.

No one has developed conclusive proof that one’s sexual attraction to another member of the same sex is not either a conscious or subconscious choice. There is no conclusive biological proof of a ‘gay gene’ that defines one’s sexual preference. Without that conclusive proof that it is not a conscious or subconscious choice, then the application of ‘equal protection’ is a case of reaching for a justification for a preordained conclusion.

That differs from your opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion, but it is only that. You are too freely substituting your opinion for fact.

There’s another fallacy that you embrace far too cavalierly – and that is seeking / using any possible ‘fact’ to substantiate your predetermined conclusion or opinion even when those items are cherry picked and used outside of legitimate context. You’ve done this re SSM in France / Spain as well as your push to use epigenetics as justifying the application of equal protection.

Oh, and since you also moved the goalposts to bring religion into the matter – religion also doesn’t entitle one to ‘equal protection’ status. Religion is adequately covered in the 1st Amendment – where there is freedom of religion and protection from laws being passed to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

You advocate more divisions, more special interests and overreach to justify them. I don’t.

Thanks for the debate.

Athos on December 20, 2013 at 3:40 PM

That’s the same dishonest spin as coming from those who accused Robertson of linking homosexuality to bestiality in the GQ interview. You know damn well that the linkage between same-sex marriage and polygamy (soon to be the others) is because of the incorrect and overly expansive application of ‘equal protection’ in the effort to force SSM. And it’s not my contention of that expansive application – look at the recent ruling on Utah’s polygamy law. It’s happening.

I have paid scant attention to the Robertson thing because I don’t really care about it. He gets to have his opinion and that’s that.

For as much as you claim the recent Utah “polygamy” case supports your opinion you are shockingly ignorant of the facts of that case. First off, for all your unfounded paranoia of a boundless equal protection clause, equal protection wasn’t an issue the case was decided on. The judge ruled on First Amendment grounds citing the freedom of religion. The judge didn’t grant them a group marriage license or multiple individual licenses either, what they got was a legal right to cohabitate which isn’t an issue with homosexual couples. You sound like one of those liberals who was talking about the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law during the George Zimmerman trial.

You are and have done.

I said laws against polygamy and incest should stand up to Fourteenth Amendment questions. That’s a limitation on equal protection.

Only in your opinion to advance / justify your bias and conclusions. Race and gender, yes. Sexual preference / choice, no.

Some of us get the evidence and then draw our conclusions based on said evidence, we don’t all get it backwards like some social conservatives tend to do. I used to be opposed to gay marriage until I saw the evidence for it and changed my mind on the issue. I would change it again back to opposition if I was presented a compelling reason to do so. Is your mind changeable?

What I am saying is the ‘equal protection’ has limitations. Homosexuality or any other sexual preference is insufficient in my opinion to rise beyond those limitations. Therefore, ‘equal protection’ is incorrectly and invalidly used as a ‘justification’ to assert a ‘right of marriage’.

The standard for protection beyond the rational basis test (though I think prohibitions on gay marriage even fail that) is a group that’s political powerless, has experienced a history of discrimination, the thing that makes them a member of the group is immutable, and being a member of that group doesn’t preclude you from being a productive member of society. If you go 4 for 4 you get special protection, and homosexuals go 4 for 4.

No one has developed conclusive proof that one’s sexual attraction to another member of the same sex is not either a conscious or subconscious choice. There is no conclusive biological proof of a ‘gay gene’ that defines one’s sexual preference. Without that conclusive proof that it is not a conscious or subconscious choice, then the application of ‘equal protection’ is a case of reaching for a justification for a preordained conclusion.

That differs from your opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion, but it is only that. You are too freely substituting your opinion for fact.

There’s another fallacy that you embrace far too cavalierly – and that is seeking / using any possible ‘fact’ to substantiate your predetermined conclusion or opinion even when those items are cherry picked and used outside of legitimate context. You’ve done this re SSM in France / Spain as well as your push to use epigenetics as justifying the application of equal protection.

You’re projecting again. Just because you have a preordained conclusion doesn’t mean I do too. I’m not substituting my opinion for fact, I’m examining the facts that we have (involving things like epigenetics) and you’re coming back to me with nothing but your unsubstantiated, unsupported opinion that homosexuality might be a conscious decision because we haven’t found a “gay gene”.

Fine, if you want someone who’s studied the question more than you or I then check out this video of a Ph.D molecular biologist who has researched the roots of homosexuality talking about his findings before a committee at the Hawaii state legislature when they were debating legalizing gay marriage a couple months ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8H5hJz52E

My opinion is informed by people like this who’ve studied the matter and found that being gay is not a choice. What’s the evidence that informs you opinion that homosexuality might be a choice? Is the beginning and end of it that we haven’t found a “gay gene”?

There’s another fallacy that you embrace far too cavalierly – and that is seeking / using any possible ‘fact’ to substantiate your predetermined conclusion or opinion even when those items are cherry picked and used outside of legitimate context. You’ve done this re SSM in France / Spain as well as your push to use epigenetics as justifying the application of equal protection.

I saw one correlation proposed involving marriage numbers in Spain but correlation doesn’t imply causation (unless you’re Al Gore talking about global warming). I pointed out the state of Arkansas saw a similar decline in their number of marriages as a way of illustrating the point about correlations. If you’ve got more evidence though I’m happy to hear it out.

Oh, and since you also moved the goalposts to bring religion into the matter – religion also doesn’t entitle one to ‘equal protection’ status. Religion is adequately covered in the 1st Amendment – where there is freedom of religion and protection from laws being passed to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

It’s SCOTUS who has made religion a suspect class entitled to the same level of protection as race and national origin. The First Amendment guarantees you to ability to practice your religion but the Fourteenth protects you from being discriminated against because of it.

You advocate more divisions, more special interests and overreach to justify them. I don’t.

Thanks for the debate.

Athos on December 20, 2013 at 3:40 PM

I’m just looking for things to be as consistent as possible. I’ve said before that I oppose all government recognition and sanction for things like marriages but I lost that debate nationally so I’m trying to make the best of it, and that means we don’t treat people differently for no good reason.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 4:30 PM

So a federal judge in Utah overturned their 2004 constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man, one woman. It passed by 66% of the vote.

We are ruled by dictators in robes. SSM is almost exclusively a judicial creation.

Vanceone on December 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Of course it’s a silly idea. About as silly as thinking allowing consenting adults to marry will have something to do with pedophilia.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 1:32 PM

If the word “marriage” can be whatever some society wants it to be to suit their purposes, than so can the word “adult”.

Nutstuyu on December 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM

So a federal judge in Utah overturned their 2004 constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man, one woman. It passed by 66% of the vote.

We are ruled by dictators in robes. SSM is almost exclusively a judicial creation.

Vanceone on December 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM

And that is where the governor of Utah should say to the federal “court”: Golf. Foxtrot. Yankee.

Nutstuyu on December 20, 2013 at 4:57 PM

So a federal judge in Utah overturned their 2004 constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man, one woman. It passed by 66% of the vote.

We are ruled by dictators in robes. SSM is almost exclusively a judicial creation.

Vanceone on December 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Pending appeal to the 10th circuit….so the matter isn’t decided yet.

Though it seems that the leftist wacko judges are intentionally sticking it to conservative Christians right before Christmas.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 5:05 PM

And that is where the governor of Utah should say to the federal “court”: Golf. Foxtrot. Yankee.

Nutstuyu on December 20, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Or just pass another ban with a slight variation.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 5:06 PM

blink on December 20, 2013 at 4:45 PM

You can save yourself the time and stop clogging up the thread by not bothering to respond to my posts. When I do read what you write, which isn’t often, it’s by accident. I usually go to the end of a comment first to see who wrote it and then I jump back to the top but if it’s you I just skip it and move on to the next one. By now I and everyone else that talks about this issue when it comes up have seen your act; you argue in bad faith and then usually throw in a fair bit of name calling without ever actually talking about the issue. I’m sorry if some gay marriage proponent has argued the issue like that with you in the past and that’s where you adopted your current style from but that’s not the way I do things and I can’t be bothered with people who do behave that way; that kind of thing is typically found on a playground and I got past that stage a long time ago. I try to maintain an honest and open intellectual debate with maybe the occasional bit of levity thrown in, but it’s primarily about substance and substance is something I never ever saw from you. I think my interactions with most people on here who actually do seem interested in having a constructive discussion (Athos, TGTN, melle and listens2glenn to name a few) demonstrate my style pretty well.

I can’t speak for anyone other than myself so I can’t state “No one cares what you have to say,” but after months of seeing what you do and how you do it I can say that I certain don’t care at all. You’re not going to get a rise out of me, much less a thoughtful response because I know that’s not what you’re about. So save yourself the time and stop posting.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 5:12 PM

So a federal judge in Utah overturned their 2004 constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man, one woman. It passed by 66% of the vote.

We are ruled by dictators in robes. SSM is almost exclusively a judicial creation.

Vanceone on December 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM

That’s not what happened. Utah’s amendment against gay marriage still stands. Utah had laws not only against one man being legally married to multiple women but also against multiple adults living together. The judge’s ruling left the marriage law in effect but ruled the law against cohabitation violated the First Amendment so they can’t go to jail for living together but there is no legal recognition for multiple marriages.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 5:16 PM

If the word “marriage” can be whatever some society wants it to be to suit their purposes, than so can the word “adult”.

Nutstuyu on December 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Yeah, and the various states have always already defined “adult” differently. That’s not exactly news.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 5:18 PM

The judge’s ruling left the marriage law in effect but ruled the law against cohabitation violated the First Amendment so they can’t go to jail for living together but there is no legal recognition for multiple marriages.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 5:16 PM

I think you’re referencing to two different judges.

Waddoups and Shelby.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 5:19 PM

And that is where the governor of Utah should say to the federal “court”: Golf. Foxtrot. Yankee.

Nutstuyu on December 20, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Hey, a 21st century Andrew Jackson!

Your respect for the rule of law aside, what would have been your reaction if the governor of Illinois had done that when the courts started striking down that state’s gun laws post-Heller?

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 5:25 PM

alchemist: you need to keep up on the news. An Obama judge just decided that the 14th Amendment legalizes gay marriage across the country, but specifically Utah. This is new, not the polygamy federal judge that decided polygamy was legal last week.

Vanceone on December 20, 2013 at 5:26 PM

I think you’re referencing to two different judges.

Waddoups and Shelby.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 5:19 PM

I stand corrected. I hadn’t seen the ruling came down today on the Utah SSM amendment case so I thought that was all in reference to the polygamy case last week.

Oh the thread on this is going to be FUN! :D

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Oh the thread on this is going to be FUN! :D

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Must have missed the fun on Australia banning homosexual marriage, Slovakia doing the same and India criminalizing homosexuality threads.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Vanceone on December 20, 2013 at 5:26 PM

My mistake. Like I said, I hadn’t seen the news that yet so the combination of the timing and the discussion I was having earlier today regarding the cohabitation case there a week ago led to the confusion. My apologies.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 5:32 PM

http://instinctmagazine.com/post/duck-dynasty-creator-played-gay-porn-star-fluffer

libfreeordie on December 20, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Another homosexual that supports Phil Robertson.
More than I thought there would be.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Must have missed the fun on Australia banning homosexual marriage, Slovakia doing the same and India criminalizing homosexuality threads.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 5:28 PM

I’m mostly disinterested in those, and I would be surprised if Australia stays that way for long. But hey, if the people who’ve threated to leave the country when SCOTUS strikes down the rest of the state bans are putting their heads together to decide between Slovakia and India for places to move to then that’s cool with me.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 5:45 PM

And one for libfree and her proud African heritage.

Uganda Passes Tough New Bill Against Homosexuality

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 5:48 PM

But hey, if the people who’ve threated to leave the country when SCOTUS strikes down the rest of the state bans are putting their heads together to decide between Slovakia and India for places to move to then that’s cool with me.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Hey, maybe your invitation was lost in the mail to those threads..

I’m surprised that the homosexuals didn’t leave the US when Bush was elected and re-elected considering their hate toward him and conservatives.

They blamed Reagan for AIDS instead of their despicable behavior.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Hey, maybe your invitation was lost in the mail to those threads..

I have to invite myself places for some reason. A person with less self-esteem might take that as an insult. :)

I’m surprised that the homosexuals didn’t leave the US when Bush was elected and re-elected considering their hate toward him and conservatives.

My offer to help Alec Baldwin pack after his promise in 2000 stills stands.

They blamed Reagan for AIDS instead of their despicable behavior.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 5:50 PM

And they were wrong to do that.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM

And they were wrong to do that.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM

We know.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Thank you, New Mexico, for reminding us that elections no longer matter.

This will end badly.

Dunedainn on December 21, 2013 at 1:23 AM

This will end badly.
Dunedainn on December 21, 2013 at 1:23 AM

I think that is the goal.

Murphy9 on December 21, 2013 at 6:48 AM

Thank you, New Mexico, for reminding us that elections no longer matter.

This will end badly.

Dunedainn on December 21, 2013 at 1:23 AM

.
I think that is the goal.

Murphy9 on December 21, 2013 at 6:48 AM

.
It is . . . . . . . but I believe we can still save the country, in spite of it.

listens2glenn on December 21, 2013 at 7:29 AM

Glenda claims to be a christian, but listens to Beck, a polytheist. Of course, Glenda, like the good christian he is, doesn’t want to believe this and refuses to take any ownership in learning the beliefs of Mormonism himself. Are you equally ignorant an all other subjects as well?

Bandit13 on December 19, 2013 at 10:05 PM
.

I asked you to explain on what ‘grounds/basis’ you made that claim against the Mormon Church, and you never explained it.

Are you up to trying, now?

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:14 PM

.
C’mon Bandit’ ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . still waiting for your explanation, here.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 11:15 PM

.
Still waiting here, Bandit’.

I was away all day yesterday (Panther scared me off, the night before), and I was hoping you would during that time lay out your evidence/reasons for stating that the members of the Mormon Church aren’t Christians.

The burden’s not on me to prove that they are. They seem to recognize Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord Of All. If that perception on my part is correct, then they qualify as Christian believers.
If you know it NOT to be true, then the burden IS on you to present your evidence.

Take your time … I’ll check back every so often.

listens2glenn on December 21, 2013 at 7:49 AM

Another Supreme Court that puts political correctness above moral standards. This foolishness will only end when our country restores the moral standards this country was founded on.

savage24 on December 21, 2013 at 4:33 PM

I’ll settle this, once and for all:
.

Everyone who agrees with me is RIGHT … the rest of you are WRONG.

.
That ought to settle it.

listens2glenn on December 23, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8