County to issue same-sex marriage licenses (NEW MEXICO TODAY 2/20/04)

AP via News Channel 15 wane.com ^ | 2/20/2004

[cyncooper]

Bernalillo, New Mexico-AP -- A county clerk in New Mexico says it has nothing to do with "politics or morals."

Sandoval County Clerk Victoria Dunlap says the county plans to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

She made the decision after asking for an opinion from the county attorney, who said New Mexico law isn't clear on the issue. He also says refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples could open the county to legal action.

State law defines marriage as a civil contract between contracting parties. It doesn't mention gender.

The issue of gay marriage has stirred controversy in other states. San Francisco granted hundreds of same-sex marriage licenses in defiance of California state law.

And lawmakers in Massachusetts expect to resume a debate on a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

[cyncooper]

Under state law, marriage is defined as a civil contract between contracting parties. It does not mention gender. "Each couple desiring to marry in New Mexico shall obtain a license from the County Clerk ... " reads NMSA 40-1-10. The only statute that mentions gender is a 1961 act that created the form used for marriage licenses. It asks for information about the male applicant and the female applicant. But the Equal Rights Act of 1973 outlaws discrimination based on sex, Mathews said.

Thank goodness I see the other counties denied issuing licenses based on the 1961 statute, so what we have here are a couple of nuts using tried and true liberal parsing to push their agenda.

[cyncooper]

then how can you accuse them of circumventing the law when the law says nothing about the sex of the couple to be married..

There is a statute addressing this:

The only statute that mentions gender is a 1961 act that created the form used for marriage licenses. It asks for information about the male applicant and the female applicant.

[GretchenEE]

Looks like this is a good time -- given the contagion now spreading -- to go for a broader, national referendum on the issue of obeying laws and protecting the sanctity of marriage.

[tuesday afternoon]

Bump.

[tuesday afternoon]

It would seem that, the only people left in america who have the guts to stand up, and fight for what they believe in, is the gay community. Whats wrong with the rest of us? If this is what we have become?

Apparently we're not as well organized. And we're definitely underfunded.

[Cubs Fan]

Amazing a judge refuses to take down ten commandements and he's fired and they're taken away

The law says no gay marriage but yet these people performing them keep their jobs.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Those are better analogies...

But one can argue against them that genetic defects as a result of that type of relationship would threaten the quality of life in American society. You cannot make that argument with gay marriages.

[cyncooper]

Amazing a judge refuses to take down ten commandements and he's fired and they're taken away

Ten Commandments Return to Ala. Courthouse

I and others would posit that there is a right way and a wrong way to get something done. That is, if one is really after a certain objective, not merely trying to make a name for themselves...

[puroresu]

The reason it doesn't mention gender is because until recently no one ever dreamed it would be necessary.

The Founding Fathers never discussed "gay marriage", so do we conclude from that that they must have been accepting of it? No, since a more logical interpretation is that the concept of two people of the same gender marrying was so freakish that they never even entertained the possibility of supporting it.

The same is true of New Mexico's law.

[KQQL]

In New Mexico, meanwhile, the Sandoval County clerk married a lesbian couple after announcing that the state had no legal grounds to refuse marriage licenses to gays. Other same-sex couples quickly began lining up to exchange vows.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040220/D80R65G00.html

[Political Junkie Too]

If government no longer enforces the law, why pay taxes as the services are being withheld.

I like that point. It might be useful to apply it more.

As more and more government officials/agencies run and hide from activist lawbreakers, why continue to pay taxes to support organizations that no longer perform the required services?

-PJ

[dougherty]

This nation is descending into anarchy. We are going down, and there may be no recovery.

What this country needs is a leader that will stand up to this nonsense. Bush and Schwarzenegger are too afraid of the pc zealots to take a tough stance on the issue. This is a modern day Fall of Rome.

[cyncooper]

Bush and Schwarzenegger are too afraid of the pc zealots to take a tough stance on the issue. This is a modern day Fall of Rome.

BS.

What is tougher than being againt it? You want President Bush to wield some power he does not possess?

Get real.

[dougherty]

Keep drinking that kool aid. Bush and Arnold are twiddling their thumbs, it took both of them days to even respond to the issue. They musn't offend the gays or the pc zealots.

[Wordsmith]

So I assume you have no problem with gay incestuous marriages?

[puroresu]

Exactly! If President Bush went on national TV and explained this in plain and firm language, the public would rally around him. All he has to do is say that marriage is an institution which is older than government, which celebrates the uniting of the opposite sexes in a natural bond which is also the ideal for raising children.

Then, he should explain how a few unelected judges and publicity-seeking politicians in aberrant precincts are trying to force gay marriage on the whole nation.

Finally, he should endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment and call on John Kerry to take a stand one way or another on the issue. Either Kerry supports gay marriage or he opposes it. He can't be allowed the wiggle room to say he opposes it while simultaneously refusing to support any measure which would stop the aforementioned unelected judges and renegade officials from imposing it.

If Bush did that, it would be a turning point in this fight. It would be the equivalent of Clarence Thomas' decisive refutation of Anita Hill. The left was stunned by the fact that he actually stood up to them, since conservatives rarely fight back. Thomas' courage rallied the Republicans, caused the 'Rats to back down with their tails between their legs, and the result was that Thomas' nomination, which appeared doomed, was saved.

It'll take Clarence Thomas-type courage to stop this lawless gay juggernaut. Mealy-mouthed efforts to appease both sides will end in a complete homosexual victory. The only way to stop this is for President Bush to draw the line and fight. If he does, watch Kerry whine, cry, and scream homophobia for a couple of days, after which he'll fold and endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment.

[Howlin]

Bush isn’t doing jack.

Since you seem so sure there IS something Bush can do, how about letting the rest of us in on it.

And be very damn specific. Quote some law.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Hmm, in the post you responded to... I said:

"one can argue against them (incestusous relationships), that genetic defects as a result of that type of relationship would threaten the quality of life in American society."

[Lunatic Fringe]

Bush isn’t doing jack.

That is correct... the federal government has no jurisdiction in this matter.

Limited government... except to enfore your moralistic values?

[I_Love_My_Husband]

new mex. thread I did was pulled. check here ping.