A Great One for Those Who Actually Revere and Respect the Law and Rights
[Update: In Utah a Federal judge has ruled that Utah's state constitutional ban against same sex marriage is unconstitutional at the Federal level. The logic in the ruling is the same as the New Mexico court, the state of Utah did not and could not present a reason for banning same sex marriage. Utah did argue that marriage could be limited to opposite sex couples because it was for procreation, but the court said this was not enshrined in the Utah law, that Utah did not prevent couples from marrying who could not have children and that effectively Utah had no case.
The judge did not stay the ruling pending appeal, and same sex marriages started immediately in Utah. And anyone opposed to that ought to look at the pictures of joy on the faces of those allowed to marry, and then decide if it is something they really want to oppose.
An obese opera singer is not on stage with respect to bans against marriage equality, but the performer is getting ready to go on.]
A funny thing happened after a bunch of states moved to ban same sex marriage. The public started paying attention and decided that no, this was not right, it was not fair, it was not American. And so gradually the state barriers to equality are falling, the latest being
|Santa Fe County Commissioner Liz Stefanics, left, and Linda Siegle, a lobbyist and member of the Santa Fe Community College board, hold hands after they were married on August 23, 2013. The New Mexico Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of same-sex couples, granting them all the same rights of marriage enjoyed by heterosexual couples. (Eddie Moore/Albuquerque Journal)|
In a written opinion, the court’s five justices agreed that marriage rights for same-sex couples are guaranteed under the equal-protection clause of the New Mexico Constitution, amended in 1972 to state that “equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person.”
Yeah, pretty hard to argue with that, unless of course one doesn’t believe in equality before the law.
But don’t opponents have a pretty good argument for their position? Not really, consider this.
Justices weighed this amendment against the opposition’s argument that prohibiting same-sex marriage was necessary to protect the government’s “overriding interest of responsible procreation and childrearing.”
The justices said in their opinion that such interest played no role in the development of the state’s marriage regulations. Its purpose, they contended, is to “bring stability and order to the legal relationship of committed couples” by defining their responsibilities to one another, as well as their children if they choose to have them, and to their property.
“Procreation,” wrote Justice Edward L. Chavez, author of the opinion, “has never been a condition of marriage under
law, as evidenced by the fact that the aged,
the infertile and those who choose not to have children are not precluded from
So what we would advise is that opponents of decency and equality work in
to change the state constitution to allow marriage only between people who
swear that they will have children, and have children the old fashioned way,
not this adoption thing where they provide a loving home for a homeless
child. Yeah, go ahead conservatives, we
would like to see how that flies.