Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

County to issue same-sex marriage licenses (NEW MEXICO TODAY 2/20/04)
AP via News Channel 15 wane.com ^ | 2/20/2004

Posted on 02/20/2004 9:55:00 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: anarchy; anarchyinamerica; attackonthefamily; civilizationattacked; civilunion; culturalsuicide; culturewar; democratsagenda; genderneutralsociety; homosexual; homosexualagenda; hysteria; lawlessness; leftsagenda; marriage; marriageunderassault; newmexico; pandorasbox; prisoners; romans1; ruleoflaw; samesexmarriage; spiritualbattle
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-174 last
To: cyncooper
What we are seeing is the beginning of a major offensive by those who want to turn society on it's head overnight.

These will be popping up everywhere like mushrooms in springtime.

To me, it's called "spreading your lines too thin"..........

......this is going to be beaten back. With great political capital lost by the left.

Undoubtably, they intend to make Kerry take them along on his quest for the White House. Timing is everything.

They'll turn it into a campaign issue; which is what I think they are aiming for.

Good luck to the Democrats, they'll need it.

Then again, it's what happens when you belong to a party populated by fractious malcontents, fueled by endless pandering.

Homosexual marriage, issue of the 2004 elections.

Sounds like Waterloo to me.

161 posted on 02/20/2004 10:16:12 PM PST by He Rides A White Horse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Just watch...........Kerry and Co want to make the economy, Iraq, National Guard service the issue.

Nope, not quite..........here comes an extremely aggressive group who is going to make big waves; another self dedicated liberal interest group who will hijack the best laid plans.

This will be an election issue, simply because they are going to force it as an issue. Whether Kerry likes it or not.

162 posted on 02/20/2004 10:43:34 PM PST by He Rides A White Horse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper; KQQL
This ought not be blamed on President Bush who is four square against this travesty.

No, he isn't.

When representing to conservative and evangelical groups, Bush has Karl Rove conference in by phone. When talking to the Log Cabins, Bush receives them personally. And then he appoints them to offices.

163 posted on 02/21/2004 4:36:51 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: billbears
This is a state issue, misreadings of the worthless 14th Amendment notwithstanding, that is covered by the 10th

No, it isn't a state issue. It's a gay attack of 11 years' duration now, going back to their filing Baehr vs. Lewin in Hawaii in 1993, in which Hawaiian gays demanded marriage licenses.

The strategy is to secure homosexual marriage in one State of the Union, and then immediately sue for injunctive relief in the other 49 States, citing the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. If you're interested, I can link you to a 2001 article in Gay and Lesbian Review online, in which Evan Wolfson, discussing the then-recent loss of the James Dale/ Boy Scouts of America case, mentioned this gay-marriage strategy and how it fit into the overall homosexual campaign to procure and use a Supreme Court decision to stuff anti-homosexual morality.

164 posted on 02/21/2004 4:45:38 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
I guess you haven't heard him repeatedly speak on the issue directly to everybody, including in the SOTU speech. Yes, he is four square against this, he is for a Constitutional amendement due to "activist judges" and thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman, period.

Parse plain speaking and then ignore it however you wish, it will never make you correct that he is for gay marriage.
165 posted on 02/21/2004 6:23:42 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
The strategy is to secure homosexual marriage in one State of the Union, and then immediately sue for injunctive relief in the other 49 States, citing the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

Which is why President Bush perceived the need for a Constitutional amendent, as he stated in his State of the Union (as but one, but the highest profile, example of him speaking to this).

166 posted on 02/21/2004 6:26:00 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: sfRummygirl
It would be nice, to have the right wing Christian president to sound like a right wing Christian president. Especially with gay marriage.

I think referring to the "sanctity of marriage" sounds like a right wing Christian president.

State of the Union Address

Excerpt:

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. (Applause.)

~snip~

167 posted on 02/21/2004 6:35:01 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Whoa, glad I checked this thread this morning. I did not see that thread last night. So as we surmised Richardson did indeed step in and put a stop to it.
168 posted on 02/21/2004 6:36:08 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Ah, I see it was the Attorney General who stopped it. I know several groups had immediately petitioned for an immediate opinion on this. Just reading the first paragraph or two, it doesn't look like Richardson gets the credit.

169 posted on 02/21/2004 6:39:32 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: sfRummygirl
And other US liberal "meccas." Kind of embarassing. But they are intellectually "superior" (so they think) and what better place to descend than on the uneducated, indefensible natives in NM?
170 posted on 02/21/2004 7:46:45 AM PST by ican'tbelieveit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
No, it isn't a state issue. It's a gay attack of 11 years' duration now

I'll give you the fact it is an attack by sodomites for the past 10-15 years. However, what does the letter of the 10th say? Did not the right to determine the laws of marriage before the constant attacks by sodomites fall under the powers of the states? Are you saying because the attacks changed the rule of law should change? DOMA passed back in the 1990s verifies the right of the states to pass marriage laws

171 posted on 02/21/2004 7:55:57 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
I heard the most logical argument regarding "gay marriage" by San Francisco radio station KSFO host Brian Sussman.
Loosely quoted: "I have nothing against gay people marrying. A gay man has an equal right to marry a woman as a heterosexual man. The same applies for a lesbian woman marrying a man. However, gays should no have any special rights. I am against special treatment of men marrying men and women marrying women."

Makes sense to me.

172 posted on 02/21/2004 8:15:05 AM PST by XHogPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
[Your quote of Bush] "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."

Actually, someone has proposed another possible cure for this constitutional punctilio-punctuating gay lawyering, and that is to use Article III, I think it is, to remove marriage from the purview of the federal court system. That would at least force the gays to fight it out, state by state.

That still might leave you with a pro-gay state court like Massachusetts's creating a Full Faith and Credit problem in a different state's legal system. E.g., even though a federal court couldn't hear an appeal from the state legal system if marriage were removed by Congress from the federal judicial purview (assuming there were no constitutional crises over that), Lambda could still argue FFC before, e.g., the Missouri Supreme Court on behalf of a Massachusetts homosexual dyad, or on behalf of two Vermont homosexuals holding a Vermont "civil union" paper.

Apropos your earlier remark about Bush's having opposed homosexual "were-marriage" publicly, I repeat that he has received the homosexual Republican lobby, the Log Cabin Republicans, repeatedly and privately and has negotiated with them privately. We don't know what undertakings he has offered them, and we don't know how far he will go in accommodating them if their support again becomes a question mark.

There is almost no doubt in anyone's mind that the Democratic Party is the Queer Party, and that they will go all the way in giving the homosexual lobby absolutely everything they want, up to and including court orders and executive orders staying Republican and Christian parents from interfering with homosexual predators who want to date and turn out their children.

But Bush has haggled with these people, too, and we don't know what Bush's real positions are on homosexuality in civil society, outside of the statement you quoted. So it's a real question: Yeah, I heard the same statements you did, but how far does it go if Bush thinks his reelection is on the line and he needs the Log Cabins to vote Republican?

Do you know whether Bush has given anything away to the Log Cabins?

173 posted on 02/21/2004 11:43:19 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: billbears
DOMA passed back in the 1990s verifies the right of the states to pass marriage laws

I agree with you, that marriage belongs to the states, and it ought to stay there. However, the Full Faith and Credit Clause makes it a federal issue whether Texas has to put up with sodomite were-marriages smiled upon by Godforsaken jurisdictions like Vermount and Assachusetts.

My analogy is the situation that existed w/ respect to divorce in the early 1950's, when smart young couples who didn't want to be held back by the stodgy laws of some Midwestern hellhole state would hop a plane to Reno for their unhoneymoon. Presto, all done, we're divorced -- and never mind what our troglodyte neighbors in Iowa think, or their greybeard legislators and judges.

174 posted on 02/21/2004 11:53:23 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-174 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson