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 2 3 8

This should be a jolly good thread.

Bishop on December 19, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Isn’t it interesting that absolutely none of the logic that the courts use to decide these cases is actually stated anywhere in either the United States or the New Mexico Constitutions? It’s all been invented by the courts. And for some reason, we all accept it as though it was handed down by Moses on stone tablets. “Oh, well sure, there’s a four prong test for this, and this must pass this extra-super-special level of scrutiny, but only if three factors apply on Tuesdays when it’s dark…”

It’s all utter rubbish, it has no basis in the Constitution what-so-ever, and it’s about damn time we smacked these courts back down into their rightful place. The way we’re going, there really is no need for us to have a legislative branch at all. Between executive orders and judicial rulings, the legislatures are pretty much irrelevant at this point.

Shump on December 19, 2013 at 4:18 PM

We approach the tipping point

jake-the-goose on December 19, 2013 at 4:18 PM

You Will Be Made To Care
–Eric Erickson

ted c on December 19, 2013 at 4:19 PM

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?

None, and that is why protected classes need to be outlawed.

nobar on December 19, 2013 at 4:19 PM

There is no holding back this tide. The only way to mitigate any of this is to remove all government involvement in ‘marriage.’ I think HotGas wrote on that a few years back, and that is the only way forward.

LaughterJones on December 19, 2013 at 4:20 PM

As is always the case with liberals and their causes, they can not legislate their desires so they use the courts. THis is going to drag this out for many years because the courts are not the place to do this. I’m not sure where the fight leads but it’s obvious there is going to be a cultural war over this and other issues, i.e. the War on Christianity and Christmas. There comes a time when people have to fight back and that time is coming. It may come with impeaching judges, it may come at the voting booth, but it’s going to come.

The liberals keep pushing and pushing the buttons and I’m just not sure how many more times they can get away with this. There will come a time when people will lose all respect for the law and the justice system. It’s a shame it’s being done this way, and that is from someone who believes there needs to be some changes, just not to our marriage laws.

bflat879 on December 19, 2013 at 4:20 PM

The state must also issue drivers licenses to 10 year olds and the blind “as a matter of equal protection”

The state must also recognize pilot’s licenses for people who have never flown an airplane, but have flown a kite and call themselves a pilot “as a matter of equal protection”

It must also issue membership to the state bar to people without any form of law degree or legal experience “as a matter of equal protection”

Seriously, it’s like these judges don’t understand the difference between the words “license” and “right”

CapnObvious on December 19, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Let the socon ranting begin!

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:21 PM

We approach the tipping point
jake-the-goose on December 19, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Lol. What are you going to do about it? Is the Tea Party going to “change” things? Those guys don’t even litter! Once you realize how powerless you are in this “democracy” you’ll appreciate why there has been a continuous leftward move for 300 years.

happytobehere on December 19, 2013 at 4:22 PM

The big question: how many years will AP have to wait before he can marry his cat?

VibrioCocci on December 19, 2013 at 4:23 PM

–Eric Erickson

ted c on December 19, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Eric Erickson is a sellout.
While he sometimes has reasonable things to say, his lack of credibility makes them worthless.

astonerii on December 19, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Court ordered, but not by a vote, right?
New Mexico is predominately Hispanic and even if they are foolish enough to vote democrat, if it was put to a vote, it would lose.
The people should be able to vote, not be governed by a court. I know, I’m old fashioned
Ike that.

AllahsNippleHair on December 19, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Let the socon ranting begin!

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:21 PM

You’ve already begun it for the other side!!

Axeman on December 19, 2013 at 4:27 PM

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?

That they’re allowed to marry and divorce in every state (but only allowed to divorce in US territories).

Kafir on December 19, 2013 at 4:27 PM

New Mexico, US
2h
Justice Edward L. Chavez said in ruling that none of New Mexico’s marriage statutes specifically prohibits same-gender marriages, but the state’s laws as a whole have prevented same-sex couples from marrying – @AP
end of bulletin
================

http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/new-mexico-same-sex-marriage/

canopfor on December 19, 2013 at 4:28 PM

There is no holding back this tide. The only way to mitigate any of this is to remove all government involvement in ‘marriage.’ I think HotGas wrote on that a few years back, and that is the only way forward.
LaughterJones on December 19, 2013 at 4:20 PM

That won’t help. Besides, government involvement in marriage is merely a recognition. It is for children. A man is assumed to be the father of a child that his wife bears. It’s important for children. That’s sort of the whole point.

happytobehere on December 19, 2013 at 4:29 PM

While I’m sure Allah’s point is spot-on about the legalities and weights associated with the court’s decision…I just think it was the “right” thing to do. Using religious convictions to try and socially modify gay behavior is ridiculous.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:29 PM

New Mexico, US
2h
Court’s decision to declare same-sex marriage legal in New Mexico is unanimous – @NBCNews

canopfor on December 19, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Once you realize how powerless you are in this “democracy” you’ll appreciate why there has been a continuous leftward move for 300 years.

happytobehere on December 19, 2013 at 4:22 PM

I’d say its been about 110 coming (immediately pre W Wilson) with maybe 25 but probably less to finish it.

DanMan on December 19, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Marriage is about commitment between the participants, says the court, not about children that that commitment may or may not produce.

The court needs a to look up the differences between the words “encourage” versus “compel” and “foundation” versus “prerequisite” in a dictionary.

Medical schools must admit every D- student without any pre-med qualification “as a matter of equal protection” because school is about education, not about the practicing doctors that education may or may not produce. Brilliant!

CapnObvious on December 19, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Let the socon ranting begin!
Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Don’t worry, dear. Your side is doing fine in its perpetual war. You’ll keep winning each battle until you find another thing to war against. It’s the definition of the Left. Enjoy!

happytobehere on December 19, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Because the state never found it important enough to force married people to procreate, or to dissolve marriages where procreation wasn’t possible, marriage is not about procreation?

Talk about stupid.

Axeman on December 19, 2013 at 4:31 PM

AP buys into the discrimination sham on gay “marriage”, as we should all know by now, but discrimination is only discrimination if there is unequal treatment under the law. And that is the one thing that anyone who supports this nonsense continues to ignore, including these latest judges to thumb their noses at judicial restraint. These rulings are going to just about destroy legislative authority in the long run because the courts will start deciding who is aggrieved as a matter of social preference, and not as a matter of actual treatment under the law.

NotCoach on December 19, 2013 at 4:31 PM

I just think it was the “right” thing to do. Using religious convictions to try and socially modify gay behavior is ridiculous.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Scratch a anti-christian, find a fascist.

Also, thanks for conceding the “behavior vs born-that-way” argument. Really undermines the case.

nobar on December 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM

It’s pretty simple: the gays need to go back into the closet. On another thread, someone has linked New Jersey, where the gays are fighting in the legislature over getting rights. They are complaining that the statute explicitly states that churches don’t have to marry gays if they don’t want. That’s not acceptable for the gays.

In other words, they fully intend on forcing religious organizations to marry gay people by government force. There’s no other explanation for their refusal to accept New Jersey’s law.

I think there’s a pretty clear case for Christians to become one of the “Protected classes” now. What power do Christians have?

Vanceone on December 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM

MeanWhile, ……….:

US same-sex marriage
2h
==

Students at Washington state Catholic high school stage a sit-in after vice principal is fired over gay wedding – @KING5Seattle
read more on king5.com
======================

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Students-Vice-Principal-fired-over-gay-wedding-236597321.html

canopfor on December 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM

So will churches in New Mexico be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals?

workingclass artist on December 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Gays–the new pink shirts– have a long history of fascism. Ernest Rohm, for one. Just because the Fascists wear pink and shove their penis’s into each other’s rectum doesn’t mean we should give them any power.

Vanceone on December 19, 2013 at 4:33 PM

While I’m sure Allah’s point is spot-on about the legalities and weights associated with the court’s decision…I just think it was the “right” thing to do. Using religious convictions to try and socially modify gay behavior is ridiculous.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:29 PM

You marking threads by drooling on them?

We tried to get you explain so called anti-gay legislation in the other thread, but that was like talking a dead chicken. So, instead, please explain to us how New Mexico’s law treats anyone unequally.

NotCoach on December 19, 2013 at 4:34 PM

While I’m sure Allah’s point is spot-on about the legalities and weights associated with the court’s decision…I just think it was the “right” thing to do. Using religious convictions to try and socially modify gay behavior is ridiculous.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Turn it around, cat. The Supreme Court of New Mexico BANS gay marriage, gay relationships, decides to enforce sodomy law, are you still with the court as the ‘right’ thing to do?
Dig into your anus, but there are going to be people who believe it’s a sin and will be against your love of anus and you and glaad are just gonna have to deal with it.

AllahsNippleHair on December 19, 2013 at 4:35 PM

That won’t help. Besides, government involvement in marriage is merely a recognition. It is for children. A man is assumed to be the father of a child that his wife bears. It’s important for children. That’s sort of the whole point.

happytobehere on December 19, 2013 at 4:29 PM

The whole thing is based an empirical observation that men who marry commit fewer crimes are more responsible workers and builders in the community than men who cannot commit to marriage.

Like all civilized communities, this storage of prosperity has been eyed with envy from by society’s raiders who just want the spoils.

Axeman on December 19, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:21 PM

I see Trollcon pajamapanther is putting in a day’s worth of Mobying.

whatcat on December 19, 2013 at 4:37 PM

So will churches in New Mexico be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals?

workingclass artist on December 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM

That is the endgame of this leftist march.

thmsmgnm on December 19, 2013 at 4:38 PM

This is an area ripe for some massive trolling, if some conservative state wanted to try it.

Now that the liberal left has made government the arbiter of health care, why not ban sodomy on healthcare issues? Or at the very least, jack healthcare rates up for gays? Tons of pain.

And it’s all defensible because anal sex is about as healthy as doing crack cocaine. Don’t states have a compelling interest in charging gays more for healthcare (I’m thinking about triple) because it’s an eminently preventable condition, much like smoking.

Vanceone on December 19, 2013 at 4:39 PM

I’d say its been about 110 coming (immediately pre W Wilson) with maybe 25 but probably less to finish it.
DanMan on December 19, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Nah. The Calvinists and Puritans (and their modern heirs) have been advancing since the execution of Charles I. They are utterly nuts and they run the whole place. Get used to it. They can’t be defeated in our “democracy.” There have been very brief setbacks for them occasionally, but we seriously don’t have a chance.

happytobehere on December 19, 2013 at 4:39 PM

…please explain to us how New Mexico’s law treats anyone unequally.

NotCoach on December 19, 2013 at 4:34 PM

It doesn’t…anymore. The court rectified the problem by forcing the state to recognize gay marriage.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Isn’t a right given to a certain group of people who qualify about the same thing as “privilege”? Do judges enjoy repeating themselves with no insight?

We can talk about the rights of adults, or we can talk about the privileges that adults enjoy relative to children.

However, they can’t make privileges fit the “equal protection” mold so that they are compelled to include non-qualifiers like they are when it’s a right.

Axeman on December 19, 2013 at 4:41 PM

We approach the tipping point
jake-the-goose on December 19, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Lol. What are you going to do about it? Is the Tea Party going to “change” things? Those guys don’t even litter! Once you realize how powerless you are in this “democracy” you’ll appreciate why there has been a continuous leftward move for 300 years.

happytobehere on December 19, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Hey happypants…the tipping point is in the other direction. The leftie sensibility is being laughed at more and more if you haven’t noticed. In a short while you’ll all be the intellectual equivalent of the “onesie pajama guy”.
Serious question. You actually haven’t noticed the left swing of the pendulum has reached the end of it’s natural arc?

Mimzey on December 19, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Meh. I don’t care for homosexuals, but this is ridiculous. They will cry/b!tch/whine until they get what they want and they have the correct backing that allows them to do this (media and gov.)

They will never be “married”. They can sign whatever certificates they want and take part in whatever mock ceremonies they want, but when it comes down to it, it isn’t real. Not according to God.

They will never be happy. The locusts known as the “victimized” groups will continue to take until there is nothing left. Continue the fight, but don’t be surprised as they have set the system up to give them whatever outcome they desire.

JAGonzo on December 19, 2013 at 4:43 PM

It doesn’t…anymore. The court rectified the problem by forcing the state to recognize gay marriage.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:40 PM

OK little boy, I’ll walk you through it slowly.

The law still exists as written. The courts did not rewrite it, they nullified it. And if the court ever changes its mind the law is still there in its current form, but no longer nullified. So I am going to ask you again: How does this law, as written, treat anyone unequally?

NotCoach on December 19, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Turn it around, cat. The Supreme Court of New Mexico BANS gay marriage, gay relationships, decides to enforce sodomy law, are you still with the court as the ‘right’ thing to do?

AllahsNippleHair on December 19, 2013 at 4:35 PM

I’m against the state’s involvement in marriage; however when they give out federal benefits based on marriage union it should be equal across the board.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:45 PM

If you guys really want to know what is coming, look at what happened to another group of people who defied the conventional wisdom of the time on marriage: Mormons in the 1800s. They, too, had a belief system that was not popular.

The punishments inflicted by the Government, in a time when the Federal government was vastly inferior and size to what it is now, are chilling to read.

Mormons had their property confiscated, various rights stripped from them (Including the right to spousal immunity in court), they were jailed, and lost the right to vote. That latter, the loss of their right to vote, was upheld by a 9-0 vote of the Supreme Court.

These punishments, including the loss of the right to vote, were extended to all Mormons (all women, and everyone in the territory of Idaho), regardless of their actual practice of polygamy–mere belief was enough. Just for believing in a disfavored system, families were broken up, men jailed (women too), property confiscated without payment, etc.

How? Because it was labeled “criminal” to merely believe in polygamy. How soon until not believing in SSM is labeled criminal?

Today, holding a belief in traditional marriage is borderline treason. If they can fire Robertson, imagine what they can and will do as their power increases.

Vanceone on December 19, 2013 at 4:47 PM

MeanWhile Part Deux,…The Hopey/Changey Sh*t-Distruber Agenda:

Obama sends signal to Russia with gay stars in Olympic delegation
Dec 18 2013- 4:12AM
*******************

Washington (AFP) – President Barack Obama Tuesday named two openly gay sports stars to his delegation to the Winter Olympics, sending a pointed message of diversity to Russia amid a furor over its law targeting homosexuals.

Obama chose tennis legend Billie Jean King and women’s ice hockey silver medalist Caitlin Cahow for the US delegation to the Sochi Olympics which begin on February 7. (More……………….)
==============================================

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/obama-names-gay-tennis-legend-olympic-delegation-231937700–oly.html

canopfor on December 19, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Mimzey on December 19, 2013 at 4:42 PM

My only issue with that is the right does nothing with their momentum. They sit back mimicking the left and once the pendulum has swung back to the left, they sit idly by feigning outrageous outrage. Don’t get me wrong, I am fighting the good fight (money,some volunteer time) but until I see progress I find it difficult to shake my eeyorish POV.

JAGonzo on December 19, 2013 at 4:48 PM

It doesn’t…anymore. The court rectified the problem by forcing the state to recognize gay marriage.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:40 PM

You’re right and as long as the state can compel labor out of all bakers to make cakes for all brands of marriage raiders, as equal subjects of the state, we’ll all be equal.

Or don’t you recognize that it is the same basic court system compelling labor from people so that the newly defined marriages don’t feel left out.

Axeman on December 19, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Just remember, in other “enlightened” democracies like Canada and England, pastors have gone to jail just for reading the same scripture that Robertson did in GQ.

The leftists like Panther are salivating at bringing that here.

Vanceone on December 19, 2013 at 4:49 PM

They will never be “married”. They can sign whatever certificates they want and take part in whatever mock ceremonies they want, but when it comes down to it, it isn’t real. Not according to God.

Then you shouldn’t care whether the state recognizes their unions or not….

libfreeordie on December 19, 2013 at 4:53 PM

I can’t wait to see the chaos when everyone is some protected class.

p0s3r on December 19, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Vanceone on December 19, 2013 at 4:39 PM

ha! the whole reason they need to spread the costs is to lessen the actuarial impacts of their lifestyle. It seems it would be pretty rational to lay that data on the table and go from there.

DanMan on December 19, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Today, holding a belief in traditional marriage is borderline treason. If they can fire Robertson, imagine what they can and will do as their power increases.

Vanceone on December 19, 2013 at 4:47 PM

So anytime someone is fired they are guilty of treason? Your logic makes no sense…

libfreeordie on December 19, 2013 at 4:53 PM

You’re right and as long as the state can compel labor out of all bakers to make cakes for all brands of marriage raiders, as equal subjects of the state, we’ll all be equal.

Or don’t you recognize that it is the same basic court system compelling labor from people so that the newly defined marriages don’t feel left out.

Axeman on December 19, 2013 at 4:48 PM

You are the one who wants the court use discriminatory practices against a group of people you disagree with. That is a very liberal trait.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Serious question. You actually haven’t noticed the left swing of the pendulum has reached the end of it’s natural arc?
Mimzey on December 19, 2013 at 4:42 PM

No. There is no arc in our “democracy.” It is a line that goes forever leftward. The Left is war. It has always been so. But by all means, continue to “fight” every few years by voting for the guy that’s 5-10 years behind the overt leftist.

It’s the natural state of democracy. We live in a atheist theocracy, descended from the Calvinists and Puritans (the craziest nutters ever). Do not speak heresy or you shall be thrown out like the Duck Dynasty guy.

happytobehere on December 19, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Turn it around, cat. The Supreme Court of New Mexico BANS gay marriage, gay relationships, decides to enforce sodomy law, are you still with the court as the ‘right’ thing to do?

AllahsNippleHair on December 19, 2013 at 4:35 PM

I’m against the state’s involvement in marriage; however when they give out federal benefits based on marriage union it should be equal across the board.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Way to dodge, pussycat.

AllahsNippleHair on December 19, 2013 at 4:54 PM

I’m against the state’s involvement in marriage; however when they give out federal benefits based on marriage union it should be equal across the board.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:45 PM

And again, everybody should be equal marriage-slaves across the board as long as they have the temerity to provide wedding services.

And again, you’re like a little oblivious child if you can’t understand that the same authoritarian court that gives “rights” of marriage then compels private citizens to act unless they have an express religious purpose in doing business.

But I know, you’re all about “freedom for everybody”…eventually, theoretically.

The same courts that are defining marriage as a right that has to be distributed equally, are defining the rules of participation. You think that that would make them a capricious source of unchecked power.

But not when you like the results, right?

Axeman on December 19, 2013 at 4:54 PM

And it’s all defensible because anal sex is about as healthy as doing crack cocaine. Don’t states have a compelling interest in charging gays more for healthcare (I’m thinking about triple) because it’s an eminently preventable condition, much like smoking.

Vanceone on December 19, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Do you have any evidence that regular anal sex with one partner is dangerous? Because if not, what you are going to have to do is penalize promiscuity without condoms. A lot of heterosexuals would be paying higher premiums…

libfreeordie on December 19, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Do not speak heresy or you shall be thrown out like the Duck Dynasty guy.

happytobehere on December 19, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Good lord. Why don’t conservatives ever notice market forces at play. Roberton damaged A&E’s brand in a society where anti-gay rhetoric has a much smaller share than pro-gay rhetoric amongst their key demos. This stuff is simple math….

libfreeordie on December 19, 2013 at 4:57 PM

You are the one who wants the court use discriminatory practices against a group of people you disagree with. That is a very liberal trait.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:54 PM

I do? I want courts to do this? Quote me.

The laws of marriage used to be enforced by no more than when two men arrived at the county clerk’s not being issued a marriage licence.

You know? Big Government, the whole thing about not issuing licenses for people who didn’t comply with the definition of people who complied for the license.

I can almost see Torquemada NOT handing out marriage licenses. And you know what, I pee the bed….

Axeman on December 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM

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.

Allahpundit on December 19, 2013 at 4:11 PM

.
All governments (on all levels) within the U.S., used to recognize the standard(s) of morality in Christian Bible, as the basis for defining standards of “normalcy.”

Whether a hetero-sexual married couple had children or not, was not necessarily the reason for giving state recognition to hetero-sexual marriage.

The male penis never was intended to be inserted into anyone’s anus, and seminal fluid was never intended to be mixed with ecoli bacteria, within the warmth of any animal’s rectum.

I’m convinced that’s how the HIV virus came into being.
.
Ok … 1000 comments, or bust!

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Merry Christmas everyone. Peace on Earth. Goodwill to all men.

kcewa on December 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Good lord. Why don’t conservatives ever notice market forces at play. Roberton damaged A&E’s brand in a society where anti-gay rhetoric has a much smaller share than pro-gay rhetoric amongst their key demos. This stuff is simple math….

libfreeordie on December 19, 2013 at 4:57 PM

We’ll see how simple that math is when A&E starts losing those 14 million who tune to watch Duck Dynasty.

Bitter Clinger on December 19, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Does New Mexico have to recognize other State’s gun permits? As a matter of equal protection? They list reciprocity with only 24 states. If I travel to New Mexico with a Connecticut permit and handgun, I am not equally protected…I’ll go to jail.

devil dog on December 19, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Oops … comment in mod-que.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 5:01 PM

libfreeordie on December 19, 2013 at 4:53 PM

I don’t for the reasons I stated above. Homosexuals can pretend to be normal people all they want. As I stated earlier, it will always be pretend.

JAGonzo on December 19, 2013 at 5:02 PM

I am fighting the good fight (money,some volunteer time) but until I see progress I find it difficult to shake my eeyorish POV.

JAGonzo on December 19, 2013 at 4:48 PM

I think so too, but the past is not prologue. It honestly seems like people are waking up…and they’re pissed.

Mimzey on December 19, 2013 at 5:02 PM

We’ll see how simple that math is when A&E starts losing those 14 million who tune to watch Duck Dynasty.

Bitter Clinger on December 19, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Indeed we will.

libfreeordie on December 19, 2013 at 5:02 PM

The same courts that are defining marriage as a right that has to be distributed equally, are defining the rules of participation. You think that that would make them a capricious source of unchecked power.

But not when you like the results, right?

Axeman on December 19, 2013 at 4:54 PM

So if I understand you correctly, federal benefits for me but not for thee. If you get a piece of the pie then the court is performing its proper function. If those same rights are given to people you want punished because of their behavior, the court is unchecked. Gotcha.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Marriage is about commitment between the participants, says the court, not about children that that commitment may or may not produce.

-Allahpundit

Yes, but gay marriage isn’t banned or criminalized in any state.
Not getting state recognition and sanction from the state is a different thing.

The states interest in marriage is only in it’s procreative capacity and possibility. This is why benefits accrue to spouses – it’s presumed they are going to forgo economic production in favor of child bearing and rearing. This is why older people who want state recognition for their marriage get it – they could very well have children who will be supported by the family and “deserve” all the state benefits.

gwelf on December 19, 2013 at 5:03 PM

If you think your getting sick of all the ghey now, wait until election year.

This is just a warmup.

aquaviva on December 19, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Pretty much every society has created an institutional structure in which children can be raised by their natural mother and father in a monogamous life long relationship. In our society we call it Marriage. And governments have recognized marriage so that they can encourage such responsible behavior (through tax breaks, benefits, etc.) on the part of a heterosexual couple towards the children that their relationship might produce. Can you give me any reason why governments should recognize same sex marriages and extend these benefits to them?

kcewa on December 19, 2013 at 5:03 PM

The fraud Conservative Susana Martinez silent again. The same fraud that stood by while a photographer’s liberty was stripped from her and her business destroyed by activist judges.

AmeriCuda on December 19, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Does New Mexico have to recognize other State’s gun permits? As a matter of equal protection? They list reciprocity with only 24 states. If I travel to New Mexico with a Connecticut permit and handgun, I am not equally protected…I’ll go to jail.

devil dog on December 19, 2013 at 5:01 PM

.
WOW … I never thought of that, and I certainly should have.

That goes straight to the heart of the NM Supreme Court’s basis for their ruling.

Right on!

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Good lord. Why don’t conservatives ever notice market forces at play. Roberton damaged A&E’s brand in a society where anti-gay rhetoric has a much smaller share than pro-gay rhetoric amongst their key demos. This stuff is simple math….

libfreeordie on December 19, 2013 at 4:57 PM

I get your point, but I wouldn’t be so sure that Robertson damaged A&E’s brand if they’re running re-runs of Robertson just to collect on all those viewers that his show brings in.

Isn’t a brand what sells? If we’re understanding the market and all. Actually, is there much evidence that shows that LGBT.* watched A&E all that much? Or bought duck calls? Or t-shirts?

So, what are the market forces again?

Axeman on December 19, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Does New Mexico have to recognize other State’s gun permits? As a matter of equal protection? They list reciprocity with only 24 states. If I travel to New Mexico with a Connecticut permit and handgun, I am not equally protected…I’ll go to jail.

devil dog on December 19, 2013 at 5:01 PM

“Equal protection” only applies to certain groups of people.

Some citizens are more equal than others.

gwelf on December 19, 2013 at 5:07 PM

You are the one who wants the court use discriminatory practices against a group of people you disagree with. That is a very liberal trait.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Who do you believe should not be allowed to marry and why not?

Mimzey on December 19, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Then you shouldn’t care whether the state recognizes their unions or not….

libfreeordie on December 19, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Unless you own a business and then the state will tell you what to do with your own property and speech.

And unless you live in New Jersey and don’t want to perform a gay marriage in your church.

gwelf on December 19, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Good for New Mexico. What’s decent and right eventually tends to win out in the end. :)

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Many states permit gays to adopt, in fact, further weakening the theory that childrearing is the province of straights only.

LOL. WOlves adopt human babies, too.

Any single person can adopt, too. This whole pretend gay marriage discussion is nothing but one idiocy after another.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM

gwelf on December 19, 2013 at 5:03 PM

.
I believe the word ‘co-habitation’ should replace the word “marriage” in your comment.
My opinion, anyway.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Does New Mexico have to recognize other State’s gun permits? As a matter of equal protection? They list reciprocity with only 24 states. If I travel to New Mexico with a Connecticut permit and handgun, I am not equally protected…I’ll go to jail.

devil dog on December 19, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Or a variable tax rate.

Or a whole host of other situations in which the government prefers one person over others.

gwelf on December 19, 2013 at 5:10 PM

libfreeordie on December 19, 2013 at 4:57 PM

You’re not so bright. A&E had no choice here. He was fired for heresy. Don’t worry, your side is winning. It will continue to win. Enjoy your Puritanism.

happytobehere on December 19, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Good for New Mexico. What’s decent and right eventually tends to win out in the end. :)

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Thank you, Caligula. How’s your horse?

kingsjester on December 19, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Does New Mexico have to recognize other State’s gun permits? As a matter of equal protection? They list reciprocity with only 24 states. If I travel to New Mexico with a Connecticut permit and handgun, I am not equally protected…I’ll go to jail.

devil dog on December 19, 2013 at 5:01 PM

They don’t but they should.

Do you think the fact they’re wrong about that means they should be wrong about other things aw well?

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Thank you, Caligula. How’s your horse?

kingsjester on December 19, 2013 at 5:11 PM

What do you mean by that?

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 5:12 PM

gwelf on December 19, 2013 at 5:07 PM

So I’ve noticed. Equal protection applies unequally. And never in our favor it seems.

devil dog on December 19, 2013 at 5:12 PM

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Exactly what Commander Phil Robertson meant.

No more. No less.

kingsjester on December 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM

I believe the word ‘co-habitation’ should replace the word “marriage” in your comment.
My opinion, anyway.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM

I agree that marriage has a religious definition which I adhere to but I used “gay marriage” because gay people do in fact enjoy the liberty to co-habitate and call it marriage. They can have a ceremony. They can have a reception. They can buy property together. They can register at Target. They can spend the rest of their lives together.

gwelf on December 19, 2013 at 5:14 PM

No. There is no arc in our “democracy.” It is a line that goes forever leftward. The Left is war. It has always been so. But by all means, continue to “fight” every few years by voting for the guy that’s 5-10 years behind the overt leftist.

It’s the natural state of democracy. We live in a atheist theocracy, descended from the Calvinists and Puritans (the craziest nutters ever). Do not speak heresy or you shall be thrown out like the Duck Dynasty guy.

happytobehere on December 19, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Seems oddly nihilistic to me.
What do you attribute this..seemingly..endless, “manifest destiny” of leftward march??
That said, it still seems to me that this country is at a tipping point…the point where vapid ideologies and ideologues are shown to be vapid ideologies and ideologues. Will it be a a cruise to the beach??..No. It will be a long fight.

Mimzey on December 19, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Thank you, Caligula. How’s your horse?

kingsjester on December 19, 2013 at 5:11 PM

He’s telling the horse why homosexual marriage is ok while polygamy isn’t.

sentinelrules on December 19, 2013 at 5:14 PM

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM

.
Oh yeah, awright ! . . . . . . It survived mod-que. : )

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Who do you believe should not be allowed to marry and why not?

Mimzey on December 19, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Who do you think the federal and state governments should discriminate against. What is the appropriate level of intolerance in your opinion?

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 5:14 PM

What do you mean by that?

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 5:12 PM

As far as I’m concerned, all references to Incitatus refer to Barky – though Incitatus had a higher IQ than the Indonesian dog-eater. I guess he’s asking how Barky’s working out for you.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 19, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Um… actually, promiscuity, whether gay or heterosexual. that is punished with higher health insurance costs sounds like a pretty reasonable idea to me. I mean, I know liberals think that immorality is risk free and no consequences, but it ain’t.

To this day, the best defense against any STD and an unwanted pregnancy is, in fact, abstinence. Living the law of chastity, which is no sexual relations before marriage and total fidelity after marriage.

You know, that would sure cure a ton of social ills… and physical ones either. I don’t have to worry about catching any STD because I’m faithful to my wife. It’s an odd concept for you, I know, LibfreeorDie. I’m not too keen on adultery.

But War on Womenz! If you ever dare suggest that maybe the Sandra Flukes of this world should pay for their own health care. Right?

In fact, in a strictly liberal point of view world, with the state responsible for all health care costs, we should be rounding up and shipping gays and promiscuous people to various camps–we can call it a forced post birth abortion. Think of the money in health costs we shall save! Xylon B was pretty cheap….. And it is the Stalin sort of thing to do, so libfreeordie should be just fine with it.

Vanceone on December 19, 2013 at 5:15 PM

“Equal protection” only applies to certain groups of people.

Some citizens are more equal than others.

gwelf on December 19, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Yeah, they can scream equal protection all they want, while advocating ONLY for their own ilk. Of course, suddenly it’s not their job to advocate for equal treatment of all people. But hey, they got theirs in the end, so it’s all good.

Christien on December 19, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Good for New Mexico. What’s decent and right eventually tends to win out in the end. :)

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Now all we have to do is define “decent” and “right”.

Bishop on December 19, 2013 at 5:16 PM

I agree that marriage has a religious definition which I adhere to but I used “gay marriage” because gay people do in fact enjoy the liberty to co-habitate and call it marriage. They can have a ceremony. They can have a reception. They can buy property together. They can register at Target. They can spend the rest of their lives together.

gwelf on December 19, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Exactly, and so then shouldn’t we encourage them to do that by granting them access to the legal status of marriage?

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 5:16 PM

I believe the word ‘co-habitation’ should replace the word “marriage” in your comment.
My opinion, anyway.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM

.
I agree that marriage has a religious definition which I adhere to but I used “gay marriage” because gay people do in fact enjoy the liberty to co-habitate and call it marriage. They can have a ceremony. They can have a reception. They can buy property together. They can register at Target. They can spend the rest of their lives together.

gwelf on December 19, 2013 at 5:14 PM

.
Ok … relatively minor point, I suppose.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 8