And New Mexico makes 18

[Scooter]

New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Gay Marriage Constitutional

AP/The Huffington Post | By Ashley Alman
Posted: 12/19/2013 1:25 pm EST | Updated: 12/19/2013 2:09 pm EST

The New Mexico Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage constitutional in a Thursday ruling.

From the ruling:

Prohibiting same-gender marriages is not substantially related to the governmental interests advanced by the parties opposing same-gender marriage or to the purposes we have identified. Therefore, barring individuals from marrying and depriving them of the rights, protections, and responsibilities of civil marriage solely because of their sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause under Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution. We hold that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections, and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law.

More from the Associated Press:

The New Mexico Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in the state Thursday, declaring in a ruling that it is unconstitutional to deny a marriage license to gay and lesbian couples.

New Mexico joins 16 states and the District of Columbia in allowing gay marriage.

Eight of the state's 33 counties started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in August, when a county clerk in southern New Mexico independently decided to allow the unions. County officials asked the high court to clarify the law and establish a uniform state policy on gay marriage.

State statutes don't explicitly prohibit or authorize gay marriage. However, the marriage laws — unchanged since 1961 — contain a marriage license application with sections for male and female applications. There also are references to "husband" and "wife."

The current and previous state attorneys general have said the law effectively prohibits gay marriage, although current Attorney General Gary King also has said he believes such a prohibition is unconstitutional.

A state district court judge in Albuquerque ruled earlier this year that it is a violation of New Mexico's constitution to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The judge based his decision on a 1972 constitutional amendment adopted by voters that prohibits discrimination "on account of the sex of any person."

Two county clerks that were defendants in that case decided not to directly appeal the judge's ruling. However, the county association and the state's 31 other county clerks — including several already issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples — joined the lawsuit to provide a way to quickly move the gay marriage question to the Supreme Court.

The five justices previously turned down efforts by gay rights advocates to get a ruling on the marriage issue. The advocates had attempted to get a decision by filing lawsuits directly with the Supreme Court rather than through an appeal of a lower court decision.

[rubato]

Progress. Who will be last? Who will be the last 5?

Yrs,
Rubato

[Guinevere]

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Alabama/Mississippi in a toss-up.

[rubato]

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Alabama/Mississippi in a toss-up.

The official line from the LDS church has softened a lot, almost live and let live. They have distanced themselves from the anti-gay movement after prop 8 in Calif? They are sensitized after the recent GOP primary issues to the fact that the hard right really hate them. They may flip.


Yrs,
Rubato

[Scooter]

Yeah, it's rather difficult to argue that a man can't marry another man, but he can marry several 14 year old girls

[Scooter]

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Alabama/Mississippi in a toss-up.

Looks like you just lost that bet:

Federal judge rules Utah same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional


SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge on Friday struck down Utah's Amendment 3 — which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman — finding that it violates rights to due process and equal protection as set forth in the 14th Amendment.

Within hours, Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill confirmed that, in light of the ruling, he saw no reason to prohibit Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"We've advised Sherrie Swensen that she should proceed — as of right now … she should be processing those applications like she would of anyone else," Gill said around 3 p.m. "As of right now, if somebody gets in line and applies, there is no prohibition against it as a matter of law right now."

U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby acknowledged in the ruling that "few questions are as politically charged in the current climate," but he said the plaintiffs in the case were asking a question that depended on the U.S. Constitution.

"The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason," Shelby wrote. "Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional."

Gill said that his office reviewed the ruling with their legal counsel and looked at all applicable rules. Unless there is another order or some sort of legal action, he said they saw no reason to not authorize the issuing of marriage licenses to gay couples.

Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2809957 ... VF0Xq0x.99

What I don't get, is that I would have thought that someone would have asked for a stay pending appeal, and I can't imagine that it would have been denied. Nor can I imagine that the state is going to let this go without appealing it.

[Sue U]

What I don't get, is that I would have thought that someone would have asked for a stay pending appeal, and I can't imagine that it would have been denied. Nor can I imagine that the state is going to let this go without appealing it.

Maybe they've just decided to do the right thing?

[TPFKA@W]

Please do not underestimate Indiana in the mix of who is last. I think they may change our state motto to "Steer clear of the Queers!".

[Scooter]

So the state did file a notice of appeal and a request for a stay late on Friday. Can't find anything on when the judge might rule.

[Guinevere]

Happy to have lost that bet!

I'll take Indiana instead, based in @W's recommendation.

[Scooter]

It will be interesting to see Scalia try to argue against himself when this case reaches the SCOTUS:

On Friday, Federal District Judge Robert Shelby struck down Utah’s gay marriage ban, describing it as an unconstitutional violation of due process and equal protection. The opinion isn’t the model of clarity we saw in New Mexico on Thursday: Shelby waffles on the scrutiny question, spills too much ink on Windsor’s alleged federalism, and spends a strange amount of time recapping the plaintiffs’ meet-cute. (“Karen and Kate met online through a dating website and were immediately attracted to each other when they first met in person.”)

Yet Judge Shelby’s opinion remains a delightful read, primarily for its willingness to take Justice Antonin Scalia at face value. Shelby sprinkles his opinion with Scalia’s doomsday dissents from Lawrence and Windsor, when the justice famously warned America that the rulings were mere Trojan horses for legalized nationwide same-sex marriage. To Scalia, these predictions were ominous and minatory: Fight back, the justice seemed to be saying, lest the terrible consequence of gay marriage blight our nation from coast to coast.

Judge Shelby has a similar reading of the court’s rulings in Lawrence and Windsor, though he casts it in a more positive light than Scalia’s dark prophecies. In fact, Shelby seems to be teasing Scalia at times in his opinion. “In his dissenting opinion,” Shelby notes, “the Honorable Antonin Scalia recognized that [legalized gay marriage] was the logical outcome of the court’s ruling in Windsor.” He then quotes from Scalia:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion ... is that DOMA is motivated by “bare ... desire” to harm couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Shelby’s response to this grim prediction?

The court agrees with Justice Scalia’s interpretation of Windsor. ... And Justice Scalia even recommended how this court should interpret the Windsor decision when presented with the question that is now before it.

And later, one final parting shot:

The court therefore agrees with the portion of Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Lawrence in which Justice Scalia stated that the Court’s reasoning logically extends to protect an individual’s right to marry a person of the same sex.

Same-sex marriage, then, is really just one more laurel in Scalia’s legacy, following closely on the heels of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. Scalia must be proud: Not many people can say they were integral in bringing about the end of anti-gay-marriage bans. But really, it couldn’t have happened to a better person.

[Guinevere]

It may not even get there.

[rubato]

There is a surprising change in the air about homosexual rights, or is it just me? The struggle seems less desperate and more like a victory parade. I don't have any real doubt at the moment about the outcome and when things change for the better it is more like a fulfillment of expectations.

Not that I think we can let up just yet, but it is more a time to be magnanimous in victory than a time to count coup. And we have the luxury of asking in a more detailed way what we want the future to be like.

yrs,
rubato

[Grim Reaper]

For the US maybe, but other countries are pretty much going in the exact opposite direction at full speed. The Ugandan Parliament has just passed a bill making being gay punishable by execution or life imprisonment. All that it needs now is their President's signature to become a law.

[Scooter]