Quantcast
U.S. & World

New Mexico legalizes same-sex marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 2:57 a.m.

    @ Neanderthal

    I guess your opinion alone trumps the testimony of millions of homosexuals world wide who say that they have been gay since birth. Congratulations

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 21, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    @Alfred/Miss Piggie/wrz/Mr. Bean --

    "Equal protection does not have its basis on who might or might not be harmed."

    All rights are limited by harm. Look up the harm principle.

    "All human interactions involve some degree of potential harm."

    Yup. The issue is a significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    Consider drunk driving. All driving presents some risk. But drunk driving is significantly riskier than sober driving, so it is illegal.

    Similarly -- polygamy, incest, etc. have a significantly higher risk of harm than other forms of marriage. Therefore they are illegal.

    "You need to stop posting your untruths."

    I haven't posted any untruths -- therefore there is nothing for me to stop.

    "...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but) does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships....the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. ..."

    In re Marriage Cases, slip op. at n. 52, 79-80.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 21, 2013 2:34 p.m.

    @Miss Piggie --

    "And there will be appeals. And the appeals should be along the lines that everyone has the constitutional protection envisioned in the Equal Protection Article (Amendment 14) in that they can marry anyone they wish provided they marry someone of the opposite sex. "

    And if anyone tries that argument, the obvious rebuttal will be that it didn't work for Loving v. Virginia, and it won't work now.

    Back then, it was "Everyone can marry anyone they wish provided they marry someone of their own race."

    You can see how well that went over with the justices who decided Loving.

    "There are other limits in the law regarding marriage in addition to same-sex marriage, such as minors, close relatives, pets, and even trees."

    And, of course, those limits are dependent on harm.

    In stark contrast, gay marriage causes no harm to anyone.

    Look up the harm principle, wrz.

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 21, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    @Kalindra:
    "@ miss piggie: I think you misunderstand the Utah ruling. The ruling held that under the US Constitution the Utah Constitutional Amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional - thereby allowing same-sex couples in Utah to marry."

    I think that's what I said.

    And there will be appeals. And the appeals should be along the lines that everyone has the constitutional protection envisioned in the Equal Protection Article (Amendment 14) in that they can marry anyone they wish provided they marry someone of the opposite sex. There are other limits in the law regarding marriage in addition to same-sex marriage, such as minors, close relatives, pets, and even trees.

    "And indeed, several same-sex couples were married in Utah today - they even married people of the same-sex!"

    There goes the neighborhood... and there goes the institution of marriage, down the drain. It's been called the slippery slope. Next comes polygamy, incest, child marriages. These people are citizens and should be accorded the same Equal Protection as gay people, would you not say?.

  • Neanderthal Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 21, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    @Tyler D: "And yet God keeps creating these people… how’s that for Intelligent Design?"

    God does not create homosexuality. In fact, He/She told Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth. How can that happen where two women or two men have intimate relations?

    Homosexuality is not in the genes anymore than pedophilia or incestuousness both of which must be quelled acording to law.

    @Really???:
    "What many of you don't understand is how lonely it is as a gay man within the LDS culture.

    How is it that you are alone? Do you not have gay friends that you can pal/live with? Why do you need same-sex marriage to not be alone?

    "Every day I am reminded by others that if I stay true to my faith I will be alone."

    That won't go away if you same-sex marry. Would you be lonely if your family disown you? What you need to do is find a way that you can overcome your same-sex attraction. Don't say it can't be done. Heterosexuals have to quell many sexual desires.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 21, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    @Contrariusiests:
    "Gay marriage does not significantly increase risk to anyone, compared to other forms of marriage. Polygamy, incest, and so on DO significantly increase risk."

    Equal protection does not have its basis on who might or might not be harmed. All human interactions involve some degree of potential harm. Those who are prone to polygamy, incest, child marriages, etc., should all be able to enjoy the same rights that those who advocate same sex marriages.

    "Therefore gay marriage is becoming legal -- and those other forms are not."

    You need to stop posting your untruths.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 20, 2013 7:40 p.m.

    @ miss piggie: I think you misunderstand the Utah ruling. The ruling held that under the US Constitution the Utah Constitutional Amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional - thereby allowing same-sex couples in Utah to marry. And indeed, several same-sex couples were married in Utah today - they even married people of the same-sex!

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 20, 2013 4:35 p.m.

    And in other news... A federal judge just ruled that Utah's same sex marriage is unconstitutional... probably based on the US Constitution's 14th (Equal Protection) Amendment.

    What? Everyone has equal rights to marry regardless of sexual orientation... provided they chose someone of the opposite sex... who is not a minor, or a close relative, or their pet, or a tree.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 2:34 p.m.

    "The LDS believes in a living prophet and if you go to website and handbook and read GC addresses repeatedly tell people that Same Gender marriage and action is wrong. "

    ------------

    They also believe that drinking is wrong, but it too is legal.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 20, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    higv
    You wrote : "Hopefully good people in New Mexico will vote for an amendment to overturn same gender marriage."

    Dear higv,

    I sincerely wish you no offense, but, I cannot understand yours and others judgmental position. In your statement above you indicated that "good people" in NM would be against SSM.

    We LGBT people have been accused of perversion, depravity,bestiality, and a thousands other maladies. Jerry Falwell and other Christian leaders blamed natural disaster, even 9/11 on us.
    Many of you have expressed fear of the destruction of this country because we are slowly getting the same rights that you enjoy. MA, and 16 other states still flourish after legalizing SSM.

    We LGBT are members of the police, schools, hospitals, market, churches, etc. etc. most of us are trusted members of society. My heterosexual friends think that I am a "good person", moral, educated, intelligent, a good Christian and I am just one gay man among millions others.

    My partner of 31 years and I live a monogamous life, raised a beautiful and bright child who is in college now.

    Please explain to me what make us not "good people".

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    Dec. 20, 2013 1:42 p.m.

    Utah should become the 18th state to support same sex marriage.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 1:30 p.m.

    @Mainly Me;

    "Judicial activism at its very worst"...

    A judge, upholding the State's Constitutional requirement of Equal Protection; Imagine that!

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 1:02 p.m.

    well, Bebybe, how do you feel about polygamy?

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    Dec. 20, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    Another case of judicial activism at its very worst. This country is in deep trouble.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    Serious: fertility is not a requirement for marriage.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    I don't believe in your god. I am not a member of your religion. Your rules don't apply to me.

    As a tax paying citizen I am free to enter legal contracts with any adult. If gay marriage makes you feel 'icky' then you should quit obsessing about other people 'marital relations'.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    @Normal Guy;

    The judge's job is to determine the constitutionality of the ban. That is exactly what he did.

    Do we get to vote on whether or not you get to marry? No? Then you do NOT get to vote on our marriages either.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    "Barring them from getting married violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution."

    -- As it also violates the Equal Protection clause of the National Constitution.

    ""Procreation has never been a condition of marriage ..."

    -- And this will also play a part in the removal of Utah's Constitutional Amendment 3. This was one of the main arguments made by Utah's ban defenders.

    "Under the ruling, clergy who disagree with same-sex marriage can decline to perform wedding ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples."

    -- Which is as it should be.

    @higv;

    "Equal protection" is not in the Constitution? What your god wants is irrelevant (especially since he doesn't exist). Yes, we know your church supports discrimination; that's one of the reasons it is having such a hard time maintaining members.

    @Serious;

    Biologically, there are studies that indicate the female who has a homosexual in her lineage is more fertile and more likely to raise her offspring to adulthood. Possibly due to the aid she receives from her homosexual relatives. It is found throughout nature; ergo, it is "natural".

    Additionally, as pointed out by the justices, procreation is not a requirement for marriage.

  • Normal Guy Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    What bothers me is that judges make these decision. Decisions of this importance should always be done by vote.

    I pity the day a judge determines that owning cars violates the constitution.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 7:14 a.m.

    I love my mother and father, too. I love my brothers and sisters, their spouses and children. I don't want to destroy any of their marriages. What many of you don't understand is how lonely it is as a gay man within the LDS culture. Every day I am reminded by others that if I stay true to my faith I will be alone. The holidays are especially hard because there is so much focus on family. How can being alone be a blessing?

  • Contrariusiests mid-state, TN
    Dec. 20, 2013 7:12 a.m.

    @Serious --

    "Biologically, it makes no sense at all."

    Many nonhuman species practice homosexual behaviors out in nature. Therefore, it is perfectly natural.

    "Children who likely would have gone to a home with a mother and a father will no be deprived of one of those valuable relationships. "

    Gay couples aren't somehow stealing children from happy heterosexual homes. There are more than enough orphans and foster children to go around. In fact, thousands of US foster children age out of the system every year because there weren't enough adoptive parents. Gay couples also raise their own children from previous relationships, as well as in vitro fertilization and surrogacy -- just like any other infertile couple.

    As the New Mexico judge said himself, infertility is NOT a good enough excuse for denying marriage to gay couples. They deserve the same rights as any other infertile couples.

    And, btw, nobody has ever shown that kids do worse in stable gay-led homes than in straight-led homes. In fact, every group of child development experts in this country SUPPORTS gay marriage -- because they know that kids do just fine being raised by gay parents.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Dec. 20, 2013 6:53 a.m.

    @higv – “Can use Bible to justify any belief.”

    That’s true… so why not follow (to the letter) everything the Bible says?

    Why pick out the couple of obscure passages to vilify people different from you when (as just two of many examples) I assume you are not wearing only single blend fabrics or stoning your children for talking back?

    When religious people can provide a logical explanation for their myopic obsession with homosexuals while simultaneously ignoring many other prescriptions found in the Bible, then we may begin to respect their bigotry masquerading as religious devotion.


    @Serious – “Biologically, it makes no sense at all.”

    And yet God keeps creating these people… how’s that for Intelligent Design?

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Dec. 20, 2013 4:11 a.m.

    Unfortunately this country IS becoming a theocracy -- of the bizarre religion of political correctness. One of its basic tenets is that gender is no more than a physical feature, like eye or hair color or skin color. Decisions are being handed down from judges like religious pronouncements. We're being told that SSM is somehow written in the fine print of the Equal Protection Clause (State and/or Federal). Those of us who support traditional marriage are simply too bigoted or provincial to understand that's it's been there all along!

    In this country you're perfectly free to believe the Universe is one big miraculous cosmic accident. Fine. If you don't believe God men made and women different, at least have the honesty to acknowledge that nature endowed men and women with different characteristics designed to compliment one another in creating a family. It's perfectly rational to understand that society has, throughout history, put its stamp of approval on marriage between male and female for a reason.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 11:02 p.m.

    @ Serious: There are many, many children waiting to be adopted. There has never yet been a case of a couple not being able to adopt because there were no children available.

    Additionally, single individuals are allowed to adopt - how is that less of a harm to a heterosexual couple than allowing a gay couple to adopt? How does that provide less of an access to both genders?

    Another idea you are missing is assistive reproductive technologies - many same-sex couples have children that are biologically related to at least one of the parents.

    The situations you posit exist in families other than those headed by same-sex parents. They are not a valid reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Dec. 19, 2013 10:21 p.m.

    @higv – “Can use Bible to justify any belief.”

    That’s true… so why not follow (to the letter) everything the Bible says?

    Why pick out the couple of obscure passages to vilify people different from you when (as just two of many examples) I assume you are not wearing only single blend fabrics or stoning your children for talking back?

    When religious people can provide a logical explanation for their myopic obsession with homosexuals while simultaneously ignoring many other prescriptions found in the Bible, then we may begin to respect their bigotry masquerading as religious devotion.

    @Serious – “Biologically, it makes no sense at all.”

    And yet God keeps creating these people… how’s that for Intelligent Design?

  • Serious Rexburg, ID
    Dec. 19, 2013 10:03 p.m.

    Furthermore, same sex marriage will bring harm to others. Because all same sex marriages are infertile, those couples will be waiting in line at the adoption agency. Children who likely would have gone to a home with a mother and a father will no be deprived of one of those valuable relationships. I love my Mom and Dad very much, I love them both equally. But they are different relationships. A male could not replace what I gained from my Mother. Likewise, a female could not replace my father.

    My Wife and I love our children. My relationship with them is quite different than my wife's relationship with them. What gay marriage is, in my opinion, is a war on gender differences and the unique characteristics each gender brings to the relationship. Gay marriage is bizarre and backwards in that each marriage will be missing a vital ingredient... the opposite gender!

  • Serious Rexburg, ID
    Dec. 19, 2013 9:44 p.m.

    It's not the religious argument that bothers me, it's the complete dismissal of biology. It bothers me when people start talking about God's law in public policy. Murder is forbidden in the ten commandments but it is also intrinsically wrong. Coffee is against the Word of Wisdom, but is not inherently evil, so I wouldn't support its prohibition. Same sex marriage, in my view, is intrinsically wrong. Biologically, it makes no sense at all.

  • Contrariusiests mid-state, TN
    Dec. 19, 2013 9:32 p.m.

    @DN Subscriber 2 --

    "If the sole criteria is that the parties to be married love each other, then there are truly no limits at all."

    Here we go again.

    Actually, there are at least TWO criteria for the legal recognition of any individual right.

    1. There are actually a substantial number of citizens who want to do it;

    and

    2. Legally allowing them to do it won't significantly increase the risk of harm to other citizens.

    Look up the harm principle.

    Gay marriage does not significantly increase risk to anyone, compared to other forms of marriage.

    Polygamy, incest, and so on DO significantly increase risk.

    Therefore gay marriage is becoming legal -- and those other forms are not.

    "...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but) does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships....the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. ..."

    In re Marriage Cases, slip op. at n. 52, 79-80.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 9:22 p.m.

    @DN subscriber

    it is truly a slippery slope of logic when you base your argument on a false pretense. Marriage as you would define it has not existed for thousands of years. It has been just over a hundred years in our country, not a biblical fact (full of polygamy) or a fact around the modern or ancient world.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 19, 2013 9:18 p.m.

    Can use Bible to justify any belief. Even though the LDS church owns the Deseret News of course many readers not of LDS faith or agree with there church particularly commentators on here. The LDS believes in a living prophet and if you go to website and handbook and read GC addresses repeatedly tell people that Same Gender marriage and action is wrong.

    The church repeatedly counsels members to support legislation that supports marriage between Man and Women. Show one scripture that supports same gender marriage. Satan does not go away quietly. When he tried to get Moses to worship him and Moses refused and cast him out Satan threw a fit. Is doing same thing with Same Gender marriage. When people vote to keep it between Man and Women he tries to go through courts. Australia court voted not to have same gender marriage hopefully New Mexico the people will follow suit.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 19, 2013 8:59 p.m.

    Congratulations New Mexico!!!!

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 19, 2013 8:57 p.m.

    JNA, Higv;

    What god do you believe in?
    higv, you wrote: " I do know God lives and gives us commandments for our benefit though."

    I believe exactly what you believe. However, if you are talking about the god that LDS believe in, you will have a hard time proving that SSM is contrary to the Lord. You will find nothing in the Book of Mormon, nothing in Doctrine and Covenants, nothing in The Pearl of Great Price, that would live us only the Bible. I wish we could meet in person with a Bible in our hands and discuss the topic having an impartial third party to emit an opinion.

    I would like for you to remember that we were born of heterosexual parents, many of us were raised learning the gospel and developing a relationship with God.

    Our Heavenly Father loves all of us and want for all of us to have someone to love because "It is not good for the man to be alone". Suitable company for heterosexuals is someone from the opposite sex, for homosexuals is somebody from the same sex.

    1 Samuel 24:15 "May the Lord judge between you and me"

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 8:32 p.m.

    It is indeed a slippery slope when natural institutions that have formed the basic building block of civilizations for thousands of years are overturned by the vociferous demands of a small group who demand tolerance and acceptance (even though they deny it to anyone else as shown in other news today).

    If the sole criteria is that the parties to be married love each other, then there are truly no limits at all.

    Based on their reasoning, it is also illegal to discriminate against a marriage between a man and two women. Or Three women, or three men. Or two men and s boy. Or two men, three women and a dog. The possibilities for loving couple/group to share the joys of "marriage" (whatever that means now) are endless.

    Is it not bigoted to oppose these if we must accept two people of the same sex as a "marriage?" After all, we cannot tolerate bigotry of any sort any more!

    Despite the court ruling, I am still opposed to anything but marriage between one man and one woman. Anything else may become legal, but that does not make it right.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 8:24 p.m.

    @JNA
    don't worry higv and worf's comments are not reflective of all of society, their narrow view of the world need not win out, that is what you were getting at with your comment right?

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 19, 2013 8:22 p.m.

    I know that a living prophet who talked to a living God and many others repeatedly said marriage is ordained of God and all sexual relations out of marriage are wrong and marriage is ordained of God. Not in a book but by a living God who talks to living prophets who tell us the word of a living God for our benefit and happiness.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 7:56 p.m.

    Well, that's no surprise. But why did they leave out polygamy if they are so sure-fired correct in allowing any type of love by consenting adults. So it isn't necessarily a condition to procreate to form a marriage, but what if you want dozens of children from several wives? Why isn't that allowed, too? To use the logic of the LGBT community, how would such a marriage situation (multiple wives) impact anyone else's marriage? What harm would it do? I know----it would reduce adultery and that has to remain fashionable because it's PC....everyone's doing it.

  • JNA Layton, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 7:50 p.m.

    Our country just became one step closer to complete destruction. How sad!

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Dec. 19, 2013 7:42 p.m.

    higv:

    That kind of talk makes as much sense to some of us as threatening people with Harry Potter characters. You really need to come up with a better argument than "because some characters in a book said so."

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 19, 2013 7:32 p.m.

    @higv
    Again just because we do not all subscribe to your interpretations of your religion does not make the rest of us immoral, I know it is hard to imagine but maybe we do not want to sin by buying into your use of religion to justify your immoral treatment of others. You do not have the corner on morality.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 7:01 p.m.

    It's getting closer.....

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 19, 2013 6:53 p.m.

    @Kalindra we don't live in an anti theology either where only people's lack of morality can be enforced as law. Can't please God without offending the Devil. Since all he cares about is our misery and is Father of all lies will do all he can to destroy the sacred institution of marriage and do what he can to make as many people miserable like he is.

    He will holler every time sacred institution of marriage is defended. Also likes to believe there is no God and he does not exist. If that is true than could care less about morality. Because why be moral when there is no immortality if you think that. I do know God lives and gives us commandments for our benefit though.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 19, 2013 6:45 p.m.

    @higv

    "What right does a judge have to redefine an institution ordained of God."

    simple we do not live in a theocracy and certainly not one dictated by your personal belief system.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 19, 2013 6:07 p.m.

    Congratulations?

    Wow!

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 19, 2013 5:38 p.m.

    What a tragedy to find something that is not in the constitution. Hopefully good people in New Mexico will vote for an amendment to overturn same gender marriage. What right does a judge have to redefine an institution ordained of God. People who don't uphold the Lords standard will have to face there maker. Tragic day for them.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 5:33 p.m.

    Yay!! Congrats New Mexico on becoming the 17th state to allow marriage equality! More to follow!

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    Congratulations to New Mexico for affirming civil rights, and congratulations to the court for wording its decision in a way that doesn't impact religious conscience. A well done to all concerned.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 5:19 p.m.

    Good for them.

  • esodije ALBUQUERQUE, NM
    Dec. 19, 2013 5:11 p.m.

    A foregone conclusion.... The NM Legislature would probably have passed a bill doing the same thing, but why leave legislation to legislators?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    A good day for civil rights.