Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

New Mexico Supreme Court: marriage equality required under state constitution

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

New Mexico state sealNew Mexico’s state supreme court has just issued its decision in a case challenging the state marriage laws. The Justices held that marriage equality is required under the state 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.

The unanimous decision is here. This makes New Mexico the 17th state to allow same-sex marriage. Washington DC also allows same-sex couples to marry.

This is breaking news, and EqualityOnTrial will have more soon.

Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for this filing

98 Comments

  • 1. Valquiria  |  December 19, 2013 at 10:25 am

    One tidbit:

    "Because same-gender couples (whether lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender,
    hereinafter “LGBT”) are a discrete group which has been subjected to a history of
    discrimination and violence, and which has inadequate political power to protect itself from
    such treatment, the classification at issue must withstand intermediate scrutiny to be
    constitutional."

  • 2. Seth From Maryland  |  December 19, 2013 at 10:36 am

    YES CONGRATS NEW MEXICO 17th now

  • 3. Seth From Maryland  |  December 19, 2013 at 10:40 am

    the ruling unanImously: The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in favor of marriage equality, making it the 17th state to allow its citizens the freedom to marry.

    KOB reports: "The state Supreme Court will now define "civil marriage" as the voluntary union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. In addition, all rights, protections, and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply equally to both same-gender and opposite-gender married couples."

    2nmThe court ruling, via Freedom to Marry:

    We conclude that the purpose of New Mexico marriage laws is to bring stability and order to the legal relationship of committed couples by defining their rights and responsibilities as to one another, their children if they choose to raise children together, and their property.

    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.
    http://www.towleroad.com/2013/12/new-mexico-supre

  • 4. jpmassar  |  December 19, 2013 at 10:47 am

    More quotes from the decision and discussion here too:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/19/1263920/

  • 5. Breaking: New Mexico Supr&hellip  |  December 19, 2013 at 10:48 am

    […] Hat tip: Equality on Trial […]

  • 6. Seth From Maryland  |  December 19, 2013 at 10:51 am

    also now couples living in Texas can travel to New Mexico then bring a lawsuit forward , that's going to make our case their even stronger

  • 7. Scottie Thomaston  |  December 19, 2013 at 10:53 am

    Going over there to rec that now, thanks!

  • 8. jpmassar  |  December 19, 2013 at 10:56 am

    Hi!

    Thanks!

  • 9. Valquiria  |  December 19, 2013 at 10:56 am

    Exactly. El Paso is going to be ground zero for challenges to the Texas ban.

  • 10. Zack12  |  December 19, 2013 at 10:57 am

    Congrats to New Mexico!! #17!!

  • 11. Seth From Maryland  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:00 am

    the ruling includes intermediate scrutiny as well

  • 12. Bruno71  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:07 am

    They dedicated a good chunk of the hearing to the issue of scrutiny. I had a feeling that was the most contentious issue leading into the ruling.

  • 13. Craig Nelson  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:13 am

    What a ruling! Well worth the waiting. Very lucidly written. For some time now this is likely to be the last State Court to legalise same sex marriage (as well, by my reckoning action by legislatures). Attention now moves to the ballot in some States and action in a multitude of federal courts.

    This ruling therefore sits alongside those of New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut as beacons for equality. The fact it was unanimous and the fact it was based on constitutional reasoning rather than taking the way out of reading the law as gender neutral.

    The ruling is a model of lucidity and will surely have a great impact in future federal court rulings. Happy Christmas everybody!!

  • 14. Bruno71  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:16 am

    I wonder how likely it is the Pennsylvania state courts might rule for equality.

  • 15. jason  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:16 am

    same sex marriage is against nature and should not be celibrated but condemed. It is discusting to think what this teaches my children. Adam and eve not adam and steve. Shame on you all

  • 16. Anthony  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:17 am

    Maybe when your son comes out of the closet you will change your bigoted beliefs.

  • 17. Bruno71  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:17 am

    Well let's hope whoever's teaching your children a) isn't a hateful bigot like yourself and b) makes sure as adults they know how to spell a common English word like "disgusting." A word which easily describes your opinions, I might add.

  • 18. jason  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:24 am

    Not bigot belief. Fact. At least gay animals just breed themselves out. We have to let them get married and look even more rediculous than ever. Waste of taxpayers time and money.

  • 19. davep  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:24 am

    YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 20. Dann  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:24 am

    SCRAM TROLL!
    CONGRATULATIONS NEW MEXICO!

  • 21. sfbob  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:27 am

    Has anyone noticed that the filing date on the opinion is December 19, 2014? I assume the court will correct this error.

    Other than that…CONGRATULATIONS TO NEW MEXICO!!!!!

  • 22. Bruno71  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:31 am

    It's too bad stupid people don't breed themselves out. I guess that's what fast food, guns, and Republicans are for, though. But seriously, though, didn't you have to learn how to spell in elementary school? Or maybe you're still attending?

  • 23. weshlovrcm  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:35 am

    Congratulations New Mexico! What a great Christmas present. Merry Christmas to all!

  • 24. FYoung  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:39 am

    The date is correct(ed) here:
    http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC34,…

  • 25. FYoung  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:44 am

    Here's a map, now showing New Mexico :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in

  • 26. Michelle Evans  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:51 am

    Yes Jason, bigot is the correct word. Don't hide your hate behind your beliefs. Own your hate and be brave enough to say it right up front that this is who you are, a bigot who hates an entire group of people just for being who they are. This is exactly the same as being a racist and hating an entire group of people because of the color of their skin. Hope you enjoy the company you keep and the dustbin of history of which you will be a part.

  • 27. Carol  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:52 am

    If you're going to go biblical on us, jason, you'll have to admit that Adam and Eve's children must have married their siblings, thereby committing incest. Is that what you espouse?

  • 28. Michelle Evans  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:52 am

    That sums it up wonderfully Weshlovrcm.

  • 29. Scottie Thomaston  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:53 am

    That was the first thing I noticed actually. Made me question if the link was real for a few minutes there!

  • 30. Frisky1  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:55 am

    Studies have shown that prejudice and conservative beliefs are linked to low IQ.

  • 31. mnbob  |  December 19, 2013 at 11:58 am

    Wasnt it technically never illegal?

  • 32. Scottie Thomaston  |  December 19, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    Happy holidays, thanks for visiting the site!

  • 33. Jim  |  December 19, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    Fellow equality believers, when someone like Jason adds their comments to this site, can we please make a pact, to just ignore the comment. We do not need to respond. Responding just plays into their bigoted game. So, in the future just ignore the comments, and they will go away. Congrats to NM.

  • 34. Scottie Thomaston  |  December 19, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    It was an open question. NM is weird because their state marriage laws didn't explicitly endorse or ban marriage equality. So one question the NM Supreme Court had to ask at the outset was, does state law even ban it ? In this opinion they said laws should be interpreted to prohibit it based on the legislature's intent, but before this decision that wasn't clear.

  • 35. bythesea  |  December 19, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    Is that the new "bless your heart"?

  • 36. Mary  |  December 19, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    Your Jesus had two daddies, and he was cool with it.. You should be too! Don't hate, celebrate. it is what Jesus is doing right now, dancing a happy dance.

  • 37. ebohlman  |  December 19, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    This is also going to put pressure on Colorado (and Arizona for that matter, though California's already applying some).

  • 38. JayJonson  |  December 19, 2013 at 1:27 pm

    The decision is effective immediately. Beginning today, same-sex couples may obtain marriage licenses in every county in New Mexico.

  • 39. Dr. Z  |  December 19, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    It also rewrites the history books, because now the Sandoval 64 have been vindicated as the first legally valid same-sex marriages in the United States.
    http://www.croneproductions.com/the-sandoval-64-c

    So does this mean New Mexico is state #17 or state #1? 😉

    (As I've written before, I think it makes the most sense to group together all the states that faced the SSM issue during the same year: NM is probably the last member in the Class of 2013 but there are still two weeks left. Keep your eyes peeled on Ohio…)

  • 40. Eric Koszyk  |  December 19, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    Why is this guy allowed to post here? Seriously, this is a website for people who believe in marriage equality, not some debate forum.

    There needs to be more moderation of this site before it's taken over by trolls like this guy.

  • 41. _BK_  |  December 19, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    I love seeing that map turn bluer and bluer… :)

  • 42. LK2013  |  December 19, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    That is such fabulous news!!! Congratulations to New Mexico! What a fantastic holiday present! And there's still a little time to run out and get married to get federal tax benefits for 2013, if you are so inclined.

  • 43. Dr. Z  |  December 19, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    No, they've always been free to post here. That's what makes this site different from NOM.

  • 44. karen in kalifornia  |  December 19, 2013 at 2:55 pm

    Not only that, but marriage licenses issued and marriages performed in this past year in NM are legal and recognized. Yay.

  • 45. davep  |  December 19, 2013 at 3:15 pm

    Whoaa!! Very good question, Dr. Z. !

  • 46. Dr. Z  |  December 19, 2013 at 3:48 pm

    I really think we owe it to the Sandoval 64 to remember and honor their place in LGBT history. They represent all the same-sex couples who got married in those early days, only to have their commitments ignored and mocked and dismissed. They symbolize something important in our community, that we believe in each other and our love keeps us going even when it seems like the whole world is against us.

    They've earned their place in the history books.

  • 47. Michelle Evans  |  December 19, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    Exactly. We are not afraid of discussion and debate. Of course the only "debate" we usually get from the anti-equality people is along the lines of "because I told you so." That doesn't hold much water and is the reason they are losing. They literally have nothing.

  • 48. Brad  |  December 19, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    "same sex marriage is against nature"
    Yeah that's right JASON, and that is why hermaphrodites cannot get married…oh wait!
    And against nature? So you are also against artificial insemination?
    "Adam and eve not adam and steve"
    Tell me something else JASON, who did Cain (their child who KILLED his brother Abel) have sex with to get us here today then….hmmmmm

  • 49. Eric Koszyk  |  December 19, 2013 at 4:53 pm

    This is not "debate". Anyone writing "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is not debating.

    This is just some "troll" coming here to try to rile up people. These people are not adding anything constructive to our conversations.

    I just don't want this site to be taken over by spammers, trolls or people spouting derogatory names.

  • 50. Dr. Z  |  December 19, 2013 at 5:10 pm

    Don't be so quick to sell the community here short. Back in the days of Perry v Schwartznegger, when this site was called the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, we had a regular troll named Louis who kept coming back to taunt us. It turns out that Louis was an employee of NOM and drove their hate bus tours (remember those?) Our side kept engaging him, both here and in the real world. Eventually Louis came around and became a supporter of Marriage Equality, and in the process we got a window into NOM we never previously had (Louis ran their website.)

    We have the better argument (frankly we have the ONLY viable argument) so we have nothing to fear from them. Most trolls only hang around for a day or two until they lose interest. The ones who do hang around, have some issues to work out.

    What ever happened to ol' Louis, I wonder? Any oldtimers know?

  • 51. Michelle Evans  |  December 19, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    We have these sorts of people drop in from time to time, but it has never proven to be much of a problem. Note that Jason posted a couple of quick comments and didn't stick around for more than a few minutes. These kinds of people can't stand having light shed on their idiocy for very long.

  • 52. Eric  |  December 19, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    All marriage is against nature. It is found no where in nature.

  • 53. Eric  |  December 19, 2013 at 5:34 pm

    Your facts are a bit factually incorrect.

    Homosexuality has been documented in over 1500 species. And, according to the last census, over 20% of same-sex couples are already raising children.

    When it comes to marriage, there is no letting. Marriage is a fundamental right, not a privilege you get to bestow upon others.

    You are right though about wasting taxpayers' time and money. The anti-gay should really stop the wasting with their attempts to use the government to enforce their superstition on others.

  • 54. Michael Worley  |  December 19, 2013 at 5:34 pm

    You have the only argument, based on your view of the world, Other people have a different worldview– where marriage does exist for children first, where divorce is a tragedy, where biological links help parents understand children. They likewise have the only argument, based on their view of the world.

  • 55. Dr. Z  |  December 19, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    Prove it in court, and we'll see who wins.

  • 56. Eric  |  December 19, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    I disagree, we should always correct their bearing of false witness.

  • 57. Josh  |  December 19, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    Wow, very well said!! This is what marriage is all about as far as the laws in all states should be concerned with, "We conclude that the purpose of New Mexico marriage laws is to bring stability and order to the legal relationship of committed couples by defining their rights and responsibilities as to one another, their children if they choose to raise children together, and their property. "

    Congratulations to NM!! :)

  • 58. Josh  |  December 19, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    If you want us gay people to breed ourselves out you should support equality. You see, the more of us who get married to other gay people who we are really attracted to, the fewer false marriages which produce offspring with our gay genes. Wait, I forgot that you probably don't understand that sexuality is somehow biological. The idea that anyone would choose to be gay and face potential ostracism from their family and friends doesn't make any sense to me, but many people sadly believe that sexuality is a choice. I know I didn't choose my sexuality.

  • 59. Zack12  |  December 19, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    So has Victoria Dunlap,the Republican (you read that right) clerk who saw a wrong and tried to make it right before she was ordered to stop back in 2004.
    No prizes for guessing what happened to her political career after that. It's bad enough to be a pro-equality Republican today,being one in 04 at the height of the anti-gay movement was a death knell.
    I hope she is not forgotten in all of this.

  • 60. Josh  |  December 19, 2013 at 6:07 pm

    As for taxpayers money, gay people pay a lot of taxes and when we are included in marriage we provide the same benefits to society as any married couple including raising kids. In fact, when gay couples decide to have kids, they have to plan, prepare and really want to be parents unlike so many tragic examples of abused, neglected and abandoned kids of straight parents. You should thank gay couples for raising highly productive, successful and the least burdensome kids in our society.

  • 61. Josh  |  December 19, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    I agree he's not adding anything useful to the conversation, but from what I've seen, very few of his type comment here so I think we're ok. This site has been around a long time now and it hasn't been ruined by their useless "arguments" I'd love for one of them someday to share with us a valid reason we shouldn't have equality. I'm not holding my breath.

  • 62. Josh  |  December 19, 2013 at 6:20 pm

    I agree. We don't need to spend a lot of time on them, but pointing out the facts in a polite way is good I think. I'd guess that they are posting just to be obnoxious or maybe they really haven't thought about this issue and just repeat what they've been told. Even if our replies don't help the poster, maybe someone else will read our factual responses and see the light.

  • 63. Josh  |  December 19, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    Congratulations to the good people of NM! Merry Christmas!

  • 64. Eric Koszyk  |  December 19, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    I love sections #17 and 18, which talk about the plaintiffs and some of the problems they have faced. I wish everyone could hear about these real life stories:

    #18: "The inability to legally marry has adversely impacted several of the Plaintiff couples who have endured significant familial and medical hardships together. On one occasion, when Rose was hospitalized, the hospital refused to provide Kim with any information about Rose’s condition or treatment until Rose’s other family members arrived, despite the fact that it was Kim who took Rose to the hospital. Miriam and Ona cared for each other’s aging parents, and both women’s mothers passed away within one year of each other. However, Miriam was not eligible for bereavement leave when Ona’s mother died, and Ona was not eligible for bereavement leave when Miriam’s mother died. Also, due to restrictive next-of- kin and family-only limitations on visitation and medical decision-making, Miriam and Ona were forced to pretend to be sisters. Jen was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer in late 2012, and doctors told her she had eighteen months to live. After surgery to partially remove the tumor, Jen suffered a stroke, which impaired some of her physical and cognitive functions. At the time Plaintiffs filed their complaint, Jen had been placed in an assisted living facility, and Angelique was spending several hours each day with her. Because Jen and Angelique could not legally marry, Angelique could not collect spousal benefits as a result of Jen’s disability, despite their twenty-one year relationship."

  • 65. Gregory in SLC  |  December 19, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    Louis J. Marinelli is a ACLU card carrier now:
    https://www.facebook.com/LJMarinelli

  • 66. SoCal_Dave  |  December 19, 2013 at 8:36 pm

    So you are against marriage for straights who don't produce offspring? And against adoption by straight people because there's no "biological link"?
    As far as divorce being a tragedy, yes, it can be, but what does that have to do with marriage equality? Are straight people getting divorced because of same-sex marriage?
    Your worldview is either hypocritical or illogical. Or both.

  • 67. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 19, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    That nice big patch in the Southwest is so nice!

  • 68. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 19, 2013 at 8:44 pm

    It must suck to be losing state after state on your way to inevitable loss, huh? 😉

  • 69. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 19, 2013 at 8:46 pm

    I love seeing comments from the antis, it just reminds me of how upset they must be to be losing! But I'll try to behave myself.

  • 70. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 19, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    Good stuff, Dr. Z – but how would Ohio deal with the constitutional amendment? Pennsylvania might get around it since it's a statute, and because Judge Jones is awesome, but I'm not 100% sure.

  • 71. Michael Worley  |  December 19, 2013 at 8:57 pm

    I didn't speak in absolutes. Have a great day!

  • 72. Christian  |  December 20, 2013 at 2:44 am

    A federal case, like in Nevada, could ensue. Or a state court could strike Issue 1 down on Federal Constitutional grounds like Colorado's Supreme Court did Amendment 2 in 1995. A state court may even hold that the State Constitution's Equal protection clause supersedes the marriage amendment, though that is highly unlikely (Fun fact: Germany has a clause in it's 'Basic Law' stating it cannot be amended to deprive any class of citizens their civil rights)

  • 73. Christian  |  December 20, 2013 at 2:45 am

    Or it will go to the ballot, which I am betting on happening sooner than a resolution from the courts, in Ohio's case.

  • 74. John  |  December 20, 2013 at 5:20 am

    His name was Louis Marinelli. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/louis-marinelli

  • 75. Steve  |  December 20, 2013 at 5:46 am

    It can also be a very good thing. Staying together for no reason doesn't help anyone. Not the adults and certainly not children.

  • 76. FYoung  |  December 20, 2013 at 6:36 am

    UGANDAN PARLIAMENT PASSES ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY LAW
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/ugandan-parli

  • 77. Dr. Z  |  December 20, 2013 at 6:45 am

    My guess it that the judge is about to order Ohio to recognize oit-of-state SSMs just like Oregon did in October. While not a complete victory, it is significant that both Ohio and Oregon could be voting to repeal their DOMA amendments next November. In both cases, SSM becomes like traveling across the state line to buy an off-brand of booze that's not stocked in the local state-run liquor store: legal to possess in Ohio/Oregon but not legal to purchase there. This can only improve our chances of success at the ballot box because voters will see it as absurd (well, the voters who pay attention) and it will rob homophobes of the argument that SSM will lead to destruction and ruin.

  • 78. Dr. Z  |  December 20, 2013 at 7:11 am

    More bad news. We are becoming polarized on the issue: as some places become more progressive, others are doubling down on their bigotry. I noticed this over the past couple of decades as I visited my family in my native state of Oklahoma, they seemed even more reactionary and outspoken in their homophobia than they'd been in the 1970s and early '80s when I came out there.

  • 79. Richard Weatherwax  |  December 20, 2013 at 7:57 am

    Nom appears to have removed the map which was on their site.

  • 80. StraightDave  |  December 20, 2013 at 8:06 am

    OT, but anyway…
    Do you all remember the "Gathering Storm" video from 5 years ago? We all scoffed at it, of course, but I was very concerned that average people might be influenced by it. In CA, they apparently were. Fast forward to almost 2014. I believe that another ad like that today would get laughed out of town by millions of average people. What was recently feared is now demonstrably false in 17 states and 16 countries. I think 2013 will be looked back on as the tipping point – CA, RI, NJ ,DE, MN, IL, HI, NM, England&Wales, Denmark, France, Brazil, Uruguay, NZ. Just wow!
    Here's to another even Happier New Year to all!

  • 81. Junior  |  December 20, 2013 at 8:08 am

    I was just thinking Pennsylvania. I know it starts in June but when will we get a decision there?

  • 82. Steve  |  December 20, 2013 at 8:09 am

    You sound so uneducated that you need to save your money and enroll in some COMMUNITY COLLEGE courses!

  • 83. General 8  |  December 20, 2013 at 8:12 am

    You heteros are the worst thing to happen to marriage. Divorce rates, chill abuse, domestic violence. Seriously, my two dogs could probably have a more effective run at a marriage than the average hetero. Lets keep it real.

  • 84. James  |  December 20, 2013 at 8:17 am

    Respectfully, your family in Oklahoma being very homophobic is not bad news for the greater LGBT community who will never meet them. Maybe bad news for those who have bigoted families, but then the burden of changing them is on you. And you can. But said folks are not going to spoil our communities incredible advancements.

  • 85. Stefan  |  December 20, 2013 at 8:47 am

    The Gathering Storm video was after Prop 8 passed actually.

  • 86. Stefan  |  December 20, 2013 at 8:50 am

    And the ad was lampooned heavily even back in 2009.

    But otherwise absolutely 2013 will be looked back upon as being a monumental year for LGBT rights in this country and abroad. It's likely the biggest year we will have until the Supreme Court strikes down every state ban on marriage equality and legalizes it nationwide.

  • 87. skrekk  |  December 20, 2013 at 8:51 am

    >>>>It also rewrites the history books, because now the Sandoval 64 have been vindicated as the first legally valid same-sex marriages in the United States.

    If we're going to rewrite history, NM would be #2 since MN is #1…….Jack Baker and Mike McConnell actually have been married in Minnesota for the past 42 years, something not very many people realize.

  • 88. SoCal_Dave  |  December 20, 2013 at 8:52 am

    Ah, no absolutes. So there are straight people loopholes, right? Because when straight people marry and don't reproduce it causes no harm but when gay people do the same, it's harmful. And because when straight people adopt there's no need for a "biological link" but when gay people adopt they can't understand their children. Interesting worldview there.

  • 89. sfbob  |  December 20, 2013 at 8:56 am

    To be honest, I doubt anyone other than the folks at NOM ever took that video seriously, even when it was released.

  • 90. Dr. Z  |  December 20, 2013 at 8:56 am

    I didn't say my family was homophobic. They're not. As for changing things, I came out on Oklahoma statewide television in 1984 as president of one of the only gay rights groups in the state at the time.

    My comments were referring to the state as a whole, which I observed becoming more homophobic over time.

  • 91. Dr. Z  |  December 20, 2013 at 8:57 am

    But in rereading my comments I can see how "they" was ambiguous. Sorry for the confusion.

  • 92. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 20, 2013 at 11:04 am

    Pennsylvanians along the 'Southern tier' of the state are VERY welcome to go Delaware or Maryland; the 'Eastern tier' of the state to go to New Jersey; and those along the 'Northern tier' of the state are welcome to go to New York. About the only ones REALLY missing out would be those in the 'Western tier' of the state, the part that abuts Ohio (until, hopefully, the state constitutional amendment is lifted in or before November 2014, then the people, the legislature, or the courts allow Marriage Equality in the state) and West Virginia.

    And the last I checked, Massachusetts, which will celebrate 10 years of Marriage Equality early next year, still exists – the New England Patriots (based in Massachusetts) are scheduled to play the Baltimore Ravens in football Sunday afternoon.

  • 93. Dr. Z  |  December 20, 2013 at 11:21 am

    How is that? I had understood the MN Supreme Court denied their application and SCOTUS denied cert in the Baker decision.

  • 94. Stefan  |  December 20, 2013 at 11:44 am

    Probably in August/September

  • 95. Stefan  |  December 20, 2013 at 11:50 am

    Quite likely actually given the recent ruling in NM, as the situation between the two states is similar.

  • 96. Free Playstation Network Cards  |  December 20, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    I really like it when individuals get together and share views.

    Great site, stick with it!

  • 97. Richard Weatherwax  |  December 20, 2013 at 1:50 pm

    Try posting on the NOM website. I made two posts on their site, and both were deleted. I'm now blocked from making further posts on their site. Do not follow NOM's example.

  • 98. freebobby.org  |  June 8, 2014 at 9:45 am

    magnificent points altogether, you simply gained a brand
    new reader. What would you suggest in regards to your post
    that you simply made a few days in the past?

    Any certain?

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!