New Mexico makes it 17 down, 33 to go.

[Zen Badger]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/us/new....html?_r=0


There's no stopping the fabulanche.

Avalanches fall DOWN slopes.

Strange that procreation got a special mention/exclusion.
The judge probably doesn't care if the offspring are fertile either.

There wouldn't be any offspring, would there

Explain to me again why I need the consent of my pet goat when the goat has no constitutional rights under New Mexico law?

Why? Has your goat been complaining?
But we're all adults here. We understand if you feel the need for a bit of man-goat love.

[Angrboda]

What the judicial activists, (unlike the voters,) have failed to realise is that by breaking down the nexus between heterosexual mating/procreation and marriage, they have eroded any bulwarks that they might have been able to use to defend against marriage in the form of - consanguineous relationships, marriages of legal convenience, bisexual polygamy, single humans who claim the 'right' to be married to non-humans...etc.

And when they let mass transit buses drive on the shoulder of the road, they're breaking down the barrier which prevents them from driving on my lawn. The slippery slope argument is not now, nor has it ever been, a valid argument. Unless you can show that marriage equality demonstrably encourages greater acceptability of these other practices, then you're just playing chicken little and crying that the sky is falling when no such effect is about to occur.

[Doubting Thomas]

“Procreation,” wrote Justice Edward L. Chavez, author of the opinion, “has never been a condition of marriage under New Mexico law, as evidenced by the fact that the aged, the infertile and those who choose not to have children are not precluded from marrying.”

Finally an official voice of reason! This is what we've been telling the homophobic fuckheads all this time!

---

I think I've figured out why religionists in general are so set against same-sex marriage. It isn't a homosexual issue or a procreation issue or a gay-couples-raising-children or a tradition issue or any of the other thousand and one 'reasons' they frequently trot out. I'm honestly beginning to suspect it's a happiness issue.

I believe (but cannot prove) that religious adherence in a society is inversely proportional to the level of general happiness in that society.

You could be on to something, but I think it has more to do with conservative Christians seeing their dominance and control of the country eroding even further. First, gay people were let out of the closet, unlike the 1950's when they kept their sexual preference a secret because they could lose jobs and be persecuted in other ways. But now, the con-Christians are totally opposed to gay marriage because allowing gay marriage legitimizes homosexuality, and they can't have that. They're still clinging to hope that everyone in the country will start listening to them again and force gays back in the closet. You and I know that'll never happen, but they're still holding to hopes it will, because frankly that's all they've got. They probably know that gay marriage is an inevitability in this country, and fighting a rear guard action (no pun intended) is about all they can do at this point in time. To allow gay marriage in their minds gives homosexuality legitimacy and in their minds is giving up the fight to the dark forces of Satan.

[Ryantology]

Explain to me again why I need the consent of my pet goat when the goat has no constitutional rights under New Mexico law?

The amount of times this ends up being your response to gay marriage threads makes them come across as admissions of your sexual preferences.

If you can explain to me why you shouldn't need the consent of your pet goat, and make it convincing, then I promise, I will advocate your right to fuck it. There's no reason we can't both work towards what you really want.

[Crossless2.0]

Explain to me again why I need the consent of my pet goat when the goat has no constitutional rights under New Mexico law?

You know, Lion, when we talk about Christians being the heirs of a bunch of ignorant, Bronze/Iron Age goat fuckers, it's meant as mockery -- not a suggestion.

[Ryantology]

The fabulanche continues on, hitting the unlikeliest of places: Utah

"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," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby. "Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional."

If Utah is not safe for regressives, where is?

[Raeven]

Oregon better be #18. That's all I have to say.

Unless they do what they did last time and make the bill fucking confusing to voters: a No vote means yes to marriage equality, a Yes vote means no to marriage equality. I read that thing like fifteen times before I filled the oval in and I'm still not sure i filled in the right oval.

It's embarrassing when New Mexico and Utah beat us to the punch, that's sure.

[Clueless Morgan]

It's embarrassing when New Mexico and Utah beat us to the punch, that's sure.

Oh, fuck! Utah beat us?!?! Now I'm depressed.

[Minimalist]

I hope the goat kicks you in the balls, Lyin.

[rexbeccarox]

I hope the goat kicks you in the balls, Lyin.

... but good.

I can't believe you're still using that tired argument, Lion, when it's been debunked a million times, sometimes directly to you. What is your real problem with same-sex marriage? Like, your real, true problem? Would you fuck your pet goat if it was legal to do so? C'mon! You can tell us!