Quantcast

GAY MARRIAGE State Supreme Court likely to uphold gay marriages, both sides say

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Related Stories

Posted: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:00 pm | Updated: 10:09 am, Thu Oct 24, 2013.

A leading legislative advocate against same-sex marriage and at least some gay-rights activists agree on one thing: After a two-hour hearing in which the state Supreme Court grilled lawyers about same sex-marriage, both said they believe the court will strike down laws prohibiting gay couples from marrying.

The case, Griego vs. Oliver, was filed several months ago after Bernalillo County Clerk Maggie Toulouse Oliver refused to issue licenses to two lesbian couples. Four other same-sex couples who were denied licenses in Albuquerque later joined the suit. A few months later, a state district judge in Albuquerque ordered Oliver — who personally supports same-sex marriage — to not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 5 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 5 free articles, or you can get complete access to the online edition for $2.49 a week. If you need help, please contact our office at 505-986-3010 You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 No Alias Commenters must use their real names.
  • 2 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 3 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. and please turn off caps lock.
  • 4 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Welcome to the discussion.

7 comments:

  • Paul Cook-Giles posted at 2:06 pm on Wed, Nov 20, 2013.

    PaulCookGiles Posts: 1

    a) The people who don't want a gay marriage don't have to have one.
    b) The demand for marriage equality is no more selfish than the demand of women for the vote or the demand of Roman Catholics for freedom of religion.
    c) While love may be the motivator for many gay (and straight) marriages, it is not a requirement for a marriage license. Marriage equality is justified by the guarantee of equal justice before the law; in this case, the right of an adult to contract marriage with the person they want to marry.

     
  • Dowg Walker posted at 12:17 pm on Wed, Nov 20, 2013.

    Jeff Posts: 1

    The people of this country do not want gay marriage. If you don't believe me then we should put it to a vote as states have done. It is not right that a radical special interest group of people have intimidated and manipulated our government and media and forced a selfish agenda on the majority. And if gay marriage is justified by the basic premise of equality and love, well then we must allow polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and even the passionate love of our animals. Or is gay love more special than these? The voting booth, folks. That is where it should be decided. That is where people won't be subjected to intimidation and name-calling by a radical, selfish minority.

     
  • George Olds posted at 10:37 am on Tue, Oct 29, 2013.

    truthteller2 Posts: 7

    I agree.

    "Natural law" is a man-made religious invention, specifically men from the catholic church.

    A word or two now about the concept of "supporting traditional marriage":

    I've already spoken about the MANY "traditions" that are out there, but I find the opinion that pro-equal marriage supporters DON'T "support traditional marriage" to be preposterous. I think heterosexual marriage is a wonderful thing - for heterosexuals. We ain't all that.

    And, allowing same-gender couples to marry doesn't infringe upon heterosexual couples' rights to get married. I've been married to my husband for close to a decade now, and millions upon millions of heterosexual couples have also gotten married in the meantime.

    IOW, gay marriage doesn't STOP or PREVENT heterosexual marriage. Nor, if human dignity means anything, does it detract from, diminish or demean heterosexual marriage. The ONLY way that could be possible is if one views gay citizens as somehow 'lesser' citizens.

    If, by any chance, my post should garner replies, I hope they won't be focused on procreation, because it simply is not a requirement of marriage - for ANYone.

     
  • George Olds posted at 10:28 am on Tue, Oct 29, 2013.

    truthteller2 Posts: 7

    And illogic at worst.

    There are so many 'traditions' when it comes to marriage. For the most part, the 'Biblical' tradition was polygamous, since women were "chattel" and marriage was largely a business transaction between two men. (As in, "A pig and two goats for your daughter, Sir?")

    Then, there's the recent case in Oklahoma which involved the traditions of native tribes that honor marriage between 'two-spirited' individuals. Apparently there are 6 American Native Indian tribes that allow same-gender couples to marry.

    And, there's an ever-growing list of religions that are perfectly fine with equal marriage. What of THEIR traditions (not to mention THEIR right to THEIR religious beliefs)?

    I agree with Justice Charles Daniels, who "said that in “the real world,” the same-sex marriage issue is a religious debate — which, he said, had no place in the court."

    The State cannot 'establish' anyone's faith above anyone else's.

    IOW, if your faith teaches you that same-sex marriage is 'wrong', then you are perfectly free not to have one, and your faith is perfectly free not to perform them.

     
  • George Olds posted at 10:22 am on Tue, Oct 29, 2013.

    truthteller2 Posts: 7

    Re: "Campbell argued that the government has a compelling interest in marriage because it encourages “procreative relationships.”

    And yet we let non-procreative heterosexual couples marry. How does THAT 'encourage procreative relationships'???

    Re: "Bosson countered that in state marriage laws, “there’s not word one about encouraging procreation.”

    And this is true.

    Re: "Justice Charles Daniels pointed out that opposite-sex couples get to file joint tax returns and have inheritance rights and joint-ownership rights whether or not they have children."

    Exactly.

    Sorry, but from my POV, the anti-equality side don't have a legal leg to stand on.

     
  • AGarcia posted at 2:43 pm on Mon, Oct 28, 2013.

    AGarcia Posts: 16

    "Campbell argued that the government has a compelling interest in marriage because it encourages “procreative relationships.”

    Please point out how the government is set out to "prove" or "ensure" all heterosexual marriages encourage procreation and how, if they fail to do so, the government is set to revoke those marriage licenses. Also, is there a questionnaire that demands or requests proof that heterosexual marriages will result in procreation? Does he mean that procreation has to occur within the marriage or outside such as Abraham's did with Sarah? That type of traditional marriage? Or perhaps the polygamous marriage that encourages procreation?

    This sociocentric and egocentric reasoning at its best.

     
  • Marco Luxe posted at 1:36 pm on Sun, Oct 27, 2013.

    Marco Luxe Posts: 1

    Has anyone fact checked the claims made by Campbell that there are non religious arguments against equality?

    I've read the article and book by George, et al, who the right hails as non-religious tracts against marriage equality, but George and his co-authors, all men, all are outspoken Catholic conservatives with deep ties to, and funding from a religious think tank. They tried to write a tract to fit Campbell's claim that there is a non religious argument against equality, but their writings are suffused with pleas to "natural law" -- which is and always has been just religious dogma cloaked in academic trappings.

    I have a feeling that Supreme Court Justices don't like being lied to.

    This is the same junk science tactic used by NOM to fund the Regnerus study to manufacture an "academic study", now discredited, to falsely claim children are harmed by having married gay parents. [The study said no such thing.] That study was completed just before, and used in, the hearings before the US Supreme Court in the Windsor and Prop 8 marriage cases.

    From article: "Daniels said that in 'the real world,' the same-sex marriage issue is a religious debate — which, he said, had no place in the court. Campbell disagreed and said several philosophers and legal scholars WHO AREN'T RELIGIOUS support the traditional idea of marriage."

     

Follow The Santa Fe New Mexican

Today’s New Mexican, July 25, 2014

To view a replica of today's printed edition of The Santa Fe New Mexican, you must be a subscriber. Get complete access to the online edition, including the print replica, at our low rate of $2.49 a week. That's about the price of a cup of coffee. Or get online and home delivery of our print edition for $3.24. Click here for details.  

Advertisement