Gay marriage avalanche in NM: Let’s help the man who started it all

Meet the man who almost single-handedly started the gay marriage revolution in New Mexico: Doña Ana County Clerk, Lynn Ellins. He’d like a little help from us in the LGBT community and from our supporters. His courage and conviction has been directly responsible for 58.5% of all New Mexico residents now living in gay marriage equality-supporting counties.

NM Doña Ana County Clerk, Lynn Ellins (KOAT.com)

NM Doña Ana County Clerk, Lynn Ellins (KOAT.com)

Y’see, back on August 21, 2013, an elected County Clerk in the far southern county of Doña Ana decided he’d waited long enough. Or more specifically, that the gay and lesbian couples in New Mexico had waited long enough.

A little New Mexico marriage equality history…

Some background: In 2004, Sandoval County’s clerk, Victoria Dunlap (R) decided she would take matters into her own hands and, believing New Mexico state law supported her decision, began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. This resulted in several dozen marriages that remain legal even today, although the state refuses to recognize them. The courts stopped her cold, almost immediately, and her own party — the Republican party, no surprise — drummed her out of politics forever. However, the court injunctions and restraining orders at the time specifically said they were intended to be temporary, until the courts and/or the legislature came up with a permanent solution. Various proposals for domestic partnership registries, civil unions, and even full marriage equality have been proposed from time to time, but never went anywhere. As for the courts, nada.

Nearly ten years went by…

Then Doña Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins decided enough was enough. On Wednesday, August 21, 2013, his office began issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. In an interview with Talking Points Memo, Ellins explained his rationale was based on a desire for justice for gay and lesbian couples — and impatience with the courts who’ve been refusing to deal with the matter in a timely way. (After all, ten years is a hell of a long time to be waiting for…well, nothing. And the likelihood of ‘nothing’ continuing for the foreseeable future.) Lynn Ellins also has a refreshingly straightforward way of speaking his mind.

“Let me put it this way, some people have balls, some people don’t, alright? Some of them truly believe that they need direction from on high and they’re not willing to do a constitutional analysis,” Ellins told TPM in an interview on Wednesday. “Some of them are philosophically opposed so they wouldn’t do it unless they were brought to the shed and whacked.”

Ellins estimates Doña Ana county has issued around 210 licenses so far, and (he believes) over 1,000 statewide.

Ellins, 75, noted that his interest in supporting same-sex marriage is nothing new. A non-native New Mexican, Ellins called himself a civil libertarian who identified as a “Rockefeller Republican” until 2000. (“There ain’t any of those anymore,” he noted.) (…) Ellins eventually joined the University of Colorado and became chairman of the Board of Regents in 1989. During his time on the board, in 1985, he pushed for an amendment to the university’s rules that made sexual orientation “a protected class for students, faculty and staff.” Such language is standard at colleges around the country now, but at the time, Ellins was ahead of the curve. “So I just didn’t come to this party at the end. In fact, I was at this party before it began,” he said. (…) “Nobody voted on whether I can get married, and I don’t think anybody voted on whether you can get married, and you don’t vote civil rights issues because the purpose of the 14th Amendment is to protect minorities,” Ellins said. “And people with that sexual orientation are minorities. So you don’t put that to a vote. It flies in the face of jurisprudence since the late 19th century.

Legal defense fund donations are needed

Now Lynn Ellins would like our help.

// //

//

Back on August 30th, NM State Senator (and history de-gaying hobbyist) Bill Sharer (R-Farmington) and his small pack of small-minded fellow GOP homophobes launched a court challenge. Not to stop the marriages statewide, but against Doña County and its clerk, Lynn Ellins, alone. (So far, the courts have declined to act or to issue an injunction.) As a man of impeccable ethics and sense of decency, Ellins has said he doesn’t think it’s right for the taxpayers of his county to have to foot the bill for his legal defense or the defense of his clerk’s office. For this reason, Ellins announced on the county’s Facebook page that he was going to launch a private defense fund. County Clerk Lynn Ellins and the Doña Ana clerk’s office are accepting donations through the Act Blue! umbrella organization in amounts of as little as $5. Donations can be made at EqualityDonaAnaCounty.com. I don’t know about you folks, but it sure feels like a worthy cause to me.

Accepting donations for Doña Ana County Clerk's office and Lynn Ellins, the man who started the gay marriage tsunami in New Mexico

Equality Doña Ana County is accepting donations for the County Clerk’s office and Lynn Ellins, the man who started the gay marriage tsunami in New Mexico.

A testament to County Clerk Ellins’ decision: NM Supreme Court finally acts

If not for the decision of this one man to go ahead and commit an act of bureaucratic civil disobedience, New Mexican gay and lesbians would probably still be waiting for our do-nothing legislature and glacier-slow state supreme court to move on marriage equality. Now, as a direct result, and in response to a petition from all the other county clerks, the New Mexico Supreme Court has agreed to have hearings on October 23rd.


Published professional writer and poet, Becca had a three decade career in technical writing and consulting before selling off most of her possessions in 2006 to go live at an ashram in India for 3 years. She loves literature (especially science fiction), technology and science, progressive politics, cool electronic gadgets, and perfecting Hatch green chile recipes. Fortunately for this last, Becca and her wife currently live in New Mexico. @BeccaMorn

Share This Post

  • Asher Frost

    Indeed. the man is a true patriot, and I only wish there were more like him in every government office across the country

  • Asher Frost

    Mr. Ellins is a hero and a patriot!

  • Butch1

    Exactly.

  • neroden

    If you go back even *farther*, to the societies such as ancient Egypt and Sumeria where women were considered people and not chattel, marriage was *still* a property contract. It is most fundamentally a property contract.

    Churches were involved in marriage in two situations: (1) in theocratic countries with state religions; (2) with the breakdown of civil government, leaving the church performing functions which the government had stopped bothering to perform. #2 is what happened in England in the Dark Ages, and left us with our current bizarre system.

  • neroden

    Feel free to try to put it to a vote, Jeff — the procedure for amending the New Mexico state constitution is to get a majority vote of the legislature, and then put your proposed amendment on the ballot.

    That was the procedure which was used to legalize same-sex marriage in *1972*, when the state Constitution was amended to eliminate sex discrimination. It’s a pity that the state has denied New Mexicans their constitutional rights for 40 years, but now the state is enforcing the Constitution as it is written.

    If you want to ban same-sex marriage, feel free to try to amend the NM State Constitution. I doubt you’ll even get it through one house of the legislature.

  • Butch1

    I agree, you’re wrong and it’s not worth commenting upon.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    Wrong. Not worth commenting on.

  • Butch1

    First of all, my comment is not addressed to your article, it was addressed to your false notion that the church ceremony came first; it didn’t. If you are here to promote your article, go elsewhere.

    Second, you’re welcome to disagree with my points if you like though it would be more helpful to point out to which of them you disagree than to just say that you did and not mention them. I only mentioned two points and they were that it was a contract between families and a religious ceremony was added later. You seem to think a religious ceremony has always been first and thus is more important and should keep gays from marriage. That seems to be your main point. You are misinformed about your history as well. Disagree all you want but, you cannot use biblical history as your source and consider yourself credible or taken seriously by people who actually hold knowledge in the historical sciences. The Bible belongs under fiction along with the stories of Zeus, and other religious stories. That is where they should be. Traditional marriages in the Bible involve a man and his many wives and concubines if he was a rich man.

    There are many kinds of marriages then and even today depending upon the cultures, mores and laws. They are ever changing. So are our laws.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    For those who repeatedly harp on my repetition, we heard you. Sorry, I’m not very creative. My starting comments are designed to be the start of a dialogue (thanks Mod 4 for the correct spelling).

    Why would you care if I posted the exact same starting comment on different sites?

    I don’t know what pisses off LGBT rights activists and could care less.

    I’m interested in advancing the point of view expressed in my original post on this site and in my Squidoo article.

    I don’t know why you feel so put upon, because that isn’t my intent, and the successful advocacy of my point of view won’t result in you being put upon. Quite the contrary.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    It would be a sad day if your scenario came true, but I believe the fair, equitable and constitutional solution I’ve proposed would have the opposite effect.

    It’s not all about same-sex marriage vs traditional marriage either; it’s unmarried couples vs. married couples, it’s singles vs married and it’s childless families vs families with children.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    This post by Butch1 doesn’t address any of the points I’ve made in my article and the post is uniformed as to the points of my article.

    As an aside, I do agree with some of Butch1’s points and disagree with others, but the post is irrelevant insofar as it doesn’t seem to be posted in response to my article or my comments.

  • Butch1

    It seems as though you are here with your ears closed but ready to do battle. You will not listen or take information when it is dispensed even when it is given to you by a Moderator.

    Just a friendly word of advice. You are new here and the last person you want to be flippant with and piss off is the Moderator. If they give you advice take it and don’t be redundant. Keep being an ass and you won’t be around long. It’s always up to you of course. ( This was friendly advice. I hope you are able to take it in that spirit and not become a victim of it. )

  • Butch1

    No, not originally. It was a legal document signed between two families with a dowry and the woman was chattel or no more than property bargained with another family. Many times if the person came from a rich family or nobility, that was land that came with the woman. With that papers had to be signed and noted either with a town, city or a lord, king to make it legal and to announce it to everyone. ( you get the picture )

    The church didn’t become involved until much later to add some spirituality to it with a ceremony. Later you revisionists have tried to change history by claiming that marriage is only a religious instrument for the purpose of excluding gays from it when one could exclude divorcees and others just as easily but, you seem to forget about them and marry them with wild abandon. I call that being hypocritical.

    What you seem to forget is that many gays ARE religious and have been married in the church already! Your argument is baseless and without any merit. Some gays are atheists and have married through a Justice of the Peace. In any event the marriage is just as legal. You might as well get used to the fact that gays CAN get married already in at least thirteen states and it will come to the state of New Mexico soon enough whether you like it or not. You can fight it and look like a fool and be on the wrong side of history and presume to know what “God” thinks or wants or you can just leave the “judging” up to your deity and stop trying to do it yourself like your Messiah has tried to teach you. It seems that many of you “good christians” never pay any attention to his teachings but pontificate about what the bible says all the time. Perhaps, you should actually try and understand what Jesus said about gays. ( By the way, He said absolutely nothing about them. NOTHING! )

    You can go ahead and read the Old Testament and Paul in the New Testament all you want but Jesus said nothing. If you’re a Christian that should mean something. ;-)

  • Butch1

    I don’t care what “the people want.” This is a civil right and it shouldn’t be left up to a majority vote.

    It’s a Constitutional Right which means that it shouldn’t be left to a majority to decide. EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT not just some have it. EVERYONE HAS IT! Get it?

  • Butch1

    I think this is great! It may be another way of usurping the state government’s authority for a moment and using the court system which seems to have a bit more backbone in their state than many others. We’ll see how long it lasts.

    One can hope. Good luck to you!

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    You guys/gals are the best. :-)

  • pappyvet

    Dogs and cats living together,mass hysteria ! Yeah we got it

  • PeteWa

    so’s your trombone.

  • pappyvet

    Hetero marriage leads to adultery in many cases. Maybe we should outlaw it

  • Moderator3

    It’s Mod3’s time. Yes, we know his/her history. It’s been discussed and will be watched.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    Aside from his later involvement here, Mod4, you might notice in Nu Mil 3 Design’s comment history, how whenever he decides to jump into a discussion of same sex marriage equality, he starts by posting the EXACT same comment he’s posted in dozens of blogs and comment threads all over the Internet.

    Repeating himself, word for word, seems to be his standard polemic strategy.

    Personally, I think he knows the “no, let’s abolish civil marriage instead” argument is guaranteed to piss off LGBT rights activists, which is is why he uses that particular trollish angle.

  • pappyvet

    I understand your point of view. However, reckoning on human nature at this point in history and based on much history of human behavior in the past, I submit that the path you outline would bring only more hostility to the gay and lesbian community.We would be seen as the reason that rights and privileges have been lost or taken away. The smallest linking of the two would cause a new wave of hatred that would be used to fan the flames of intolerance.
    So I submit that if you are to let one cat out of the bag, then all should go free.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcrEqIpi6sg Moderator4

    A “dialogue” (use your spell-check, by the way) does not involve repeating the same thing over and over again. “Hear that,” Nu Mil 3 Design.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    Moderator4 wrote:
    …you should also be aware that identical phrases and sentences tend to be flagged for our attention.

    Hear that America! Now we’re getting somewhere! ;-)

    Thanks for the diologue folks. Long work week ahead…off to bed.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcrEqIpi6sg Moderator4

    Thank you for your appreciation. We appreciate your appreciation. ;)
    But you should also be aware that identical phrases and sentences tend to be flagged for our attention.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    Thank you and same to you.

    I’ll invite you to the victory celebration.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    I’ll handle my own replies, please. Similar questions can be answered with similar answers; I’m not very creative.

    I do want to state that I appreciate this open forum with its people of strong positions and passionate convictions. Impressive.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcrEqIpi6sg Moderator4

    Nu Mil 3 Design, you are repeating yourself with the same sentences on several of your comments. Please be aware that the readers of this blog are perfectly capable of remembering the phrases you wrote previously. Thank you.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    Current law mandates government licensing of marriage. When the Supreme Court invalidates those laws…

    I’m going to stop you right there. Again. For the umpteenth time and hereafter you can expect no further replies from me.

    The United States Supreme Court will never invalidate the laws mandating the government licensing of marriage. Not under the First Amendment, not under any other provision. Your position is specious and operates from false assumptions and utterly faulty legal reasoning.

    They are never going to throw out the entire edifice of civil marriage simply because people like yourself cannot (or refuse to) understand the difference between civil and religious marriage.

    Nice ad hominem attack at the end there. Buh-bye, have a nice life.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    Government recognition of marriage or marriage rights is unconstitutional in my opinion. So we disagree on that point.

    My solution to the marriage rights issue is fair, equitable and constitutional.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    Current laws mandate government involvement in marriage and divorce. When the Supreme Court invalidates those laws, government involvement in marriage and the dissolution of marriage will cease to exist.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    Current law mandates government licensing of marriage. When the Supreme Court invalidates those laws, government licensing of marriages will cease to exist.

    My posts happen to coincide with many same-sex marriage articles like this one by Becca because I use Google News to import “marriage rights related articles” into my site on Squidoo.

    What makes government recognition of any and all marriages and any and all marriage rights and benefits unconstitutional is the 1st Amendment.

    My article is not an attack on same-sex marriage; my article on Squidoo clearly states that the government is prohibited from enacting laws that ban same-sex marriage. My article also clearly states that government bodies cannot prevent a religious body from performing a same-sex marriage.

    The article is in English, which is perhaps the problem.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    Yeah, it’s a silly argument anyway. Can you get legally married without a priest or any other religious officiant? Yes. Can you get legally married without civil government authorization and a duly issued license? No.

    I spent some time skimming his comment history, and Nu Mil’s particular trollishness seems to be whenever he notices a same-sex marriage equality discussion or post, he tries (often successfully) to derail it by copy-pasting the exact same starting post — which links to a Squidoo article where he tries to argue that the application of the word ‘marriage’ is what makes it all unconstitutional.

    And it’s all based on fallacies.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    It’s pretty simple really, and Nu Mil’s problem is he keeps conflating religious marriage with civil marriage, and seems to think there is no such thing as a 100% religion-free marriage enactment.

    – Have a marriage ceremony in a church, temple, or other place by a religious man or woman, even if they are otherwise authorized to solemnize marriages, but with no civil marriage license = Not a legal marriage, period. Unrecognized by the state or federal government.

    – Get married in a county clerk’s office by a designated non-religious deputy, judge, mayor or other government official, or even by an appropriate licensed Elvis impersonator, subject to having a duly-issued civil marriage license in hand = 100% married under civil law.

    Can a priest issue a marriage license? No. Can a priest register a marriage and make it legal? No. Can a priest grant a divorce? No.

    In short, a legal marriage, regardless who performs the swearing part requires a civil license, the issuance of which is governed by civil, not religious law. And, moreover, requires no religious component whatsoever to enact and make binding.

    That’s where his entire rationale falls flat. Only if one or more specific religious ceremonies were also required would his argument hold any water whatsoever. No religious component is required, ergo his proposal would serve no purpose other than to piss off the heteros.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    How about we put your civil rights to a vote, hmm?

    As for the rest of your false equivalencies, that’s outright homophobic bigotry.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    I read it. You clearly don’t understand the difference between religious and civil, and how each of those adjectives completely changes the noun they modify, making them entirely exclusive of each other.

    The place NOT to take that opinion is a blog where people like myself are fighting for marriage equality rights, not for separate-but-unequal civil unions. And before you suggest we should be fighting to impost those on everyone — well, that’s how you lose a war. By picking a losing strategy that the majority will hate, because they will interpret it as gay people trying to take away their marriages.

    Sorry, bub. Totally the wrong venue for your little legal-semantic jeremiad.

  • DDR

    It doesn’t matter whether or not the people support it – it is unconstitutional to discriminate against a group of individuals. If the majority of people in an area supported murder, would that make it legal? No.

  • Jeff

    The people of New Mexico do not want gay marriage. If you don’t believe me then lets put it to a VOTE!!! The corrupt news media and politicians are manipulating and lying. If the justification for gay marriage is the basic premise of equality, love, pursuit of happiness… then we will have to accept polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and even the passionate love of animals… or is homosexual love more special than these others??? This puts us in a Godless society which will eventually bring acceptance of prostitution, exhibitionism, pleasure lifestyle and such. New Mexicans do not want this….. Let the people decide and not the biased, corrupt, lying, manipulating news media and politicians !!!

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design
  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    I think I basically agree with what you’re saying, except that in my opinion: 1.) government officials, such as judges, are constitutionally prohibited from performing a marriage, and 2.) marriage rights, responsibilities and benefits are constitutionally prohibited from being codified in American law.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design
  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    I consider it a nightmare.

  • pappyvet

    I understand what you are trying to say however, a hetero couple can be married by a Judge as well as a Priest and the rights bestowed given automatically. It is not the religious aspect of the legal union that I am concerned with. It is the denying of the recognition of deep commitment due to orientation based on a homophobic philosophy that denies those rights that I am concerned with.
    I do not wish to see anyone lose anything. I just want gay and lesbian folk to be able to sit at the counter.

  • pappyvet

    We cannot send much, but this is too important not to give our best. Plus,those in the shadows will be watching to gauge the response. So lets make it difficult to ignore !

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    In your opinion. Not mine.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    I have a dream.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    Dream on, buddy. Dream on.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    My article advocates a post-civil marriage solution that is fair, equitable and constitutional for both straight couples and same-sex couples.

    Centuries of legal precedent supporting slavery weren’t enough to prevent its demise.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    My Greek is a little rusty. :-)

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    The main job of the Supreme Court is to either affirm or invalidate current law.

    When the laws regarding marriage and marriage rights are eventually invalidated, as they must be in my opinion, the states will no longer be issuing marriage licenses.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    The main job of the Supreme Court is to either affirm or invalidate current law.

    When the laws regarding marriage and marriage rights are eventually invalidated, as they must be in my opinion, the City of St. Louis will no longer be issuing marriage licenses.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    Your argument ignores the status quo ante, as well as centuries of legal precedent.

    Argue all you want that civil marriage is unconstitutional, but you are flat out wrong. Civil marriage is an a-religious contract between two consenting adults. Period, end of, and completely removes any attempted legal argument that CIVIL marriage is a violation of the 1st amendment. In simpler terms, your reasoning is full of baloney and would be laughed out of every court in the land.

    Few will agree with your bizarre reasoning. None of us lesbian and gay couples will stop fighting for a civil right afforded only to straight people.

    We want equal protection under the law. That is what is ‘fair and equitable.’

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    Sorry to hear that.

    My article advocates for a fair, equitable and constitutional solution to the marriage rights issue.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    I’m not a law student or connected to any legal entity. Not very creative either; sorry my comments aren’t more original. Very few of the comments in reply to my argument, both here or at other sites, are ever substantial or persuasive. I do appreciate the active participation of the responders, however.

    The “equal protection of the laws” and the “due process of law” clauses of
    Section 1 of the 14th Amendment guarantee equal rights for everyone.
    However, the”establishment of religion” clause of the 1st Amendment prohibits government involvement in any marriage and any marriage issues with some exceptions of compelling and substantial legal interest. The constitutional argument presented in my article is fair and equitable to everyone.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    *shrugs* I’m guessing his copies of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are dog-eared, highlighter marked, and margin commented into near oblivion.

    In any case, a casual view of his comment history shows that anytime there’s a story about same sex marriage equality, he posts the EXACT word-for-word comment you see above that started this sub-thread. I’d have thought him an outright spammer if he hadn’t actually responded in this thread with more nonsense. I don’t even think a 1st year law school student would be so foolish or full of it.

    Anyway, I take his kind of post as the lowest form of concern-trolling, really. And frankly I don’t give a flying rat’s ass if he thinks civil marriage is unconstitutional, because it isn’t and most likely never will be declared such. I won’t stop fighting until those protections for spouses and families are available to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender.

  • samizdat

    That’s funny…I guess I’ll need to ask the City of St. Louis why it issued my wife and I a marriage license. (Male/female marriage, BTW)

    Geez, where do these goofballs come from?

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    Boswell did absolutely ground breaking work! It’s a great read.

  • samizdat

    “…unless they were brought to the shed and whacked.” Lol, I felt like applauding! Congratulations, Mr. Ellins, for having the courage to stand up for our Constitutional and human rights, gay or not gay.

    I want to buy this man a beer, and toast his moral and ethical fortitude. Sláinte!

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    Good catch, Tom

  • Tom Hawk

    I have a phobia concerning using a credit card on the internet. Donations can be mailed to

    Equality Dona Ana County
    c/o Dona Ana County Clerk
    845 N. Motel Blvd
    Las Cruces, NM 88007

  • Tom Hawk

    For a bit of history regarding marriage, both gay and straight, see “Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe” John Boswell, 1994, Vintage Press. ISBN: 0-679-75164-5. Lots of detail concerning all kinds and forms of marriage equivalents. Warning!!!! Heavy reading. It would help it you can read ancient Greek note in the text and footnotes.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    Although the pageantry of religious ‘marriage’ is loath to admit it, the institution is an instrument of commerce.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    Perhaps NM3 is in the first year of law school and thinks a new idea has been discovered. The sharks will take it down sooner or later.

  • Tom Hawk

    Marriage is not a religious instrument and has never been restricted to such in 3000 years or more of recorded history. A marriage license issued by the state is a legal authority to conjoin two individuals. A marriage certificate is recognition of a contract between those individuals. Within the last 1000 years the original intent to form family, commercial or royal alliances has given way to mostly affectionate couplings.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    Your Constitutional argument has no standing, because your premise is false.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    BRAVO!!!!!

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    I think that given my age, I prefer to direct my energies toward the possible — and to causes I actually believe in.

    I simply don’t believe in yours.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    When the Supreme Court invalidates all legal code involving government involvement in marriage issues, none of us will have to waste any more time dealing with it.

    I’m arguing from a constitutional perspective, not a libertarian perspective.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    I don’t have any firsthand knowledge of Roman Catholicism, so I can’t speak to your point. I’m addressing the unconstitutional nature of government involvement in marriage and marriage issues.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    What bull*hit. Marriage is not fundamentally a religious instrument. It is a secular contractual one. Your reasoning is based on a fallacy and you are wasting our time with your nonsense. Go peddle this libertarian rubbish somewhere else.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    For the most part the real world job of the Supreme Court is to either affirm or invalidate law.

    If the Supreme Court does its job, it will be during our lifetime. If it doesn’t do its job, the justices should resign or be replaced.

  • Indigo

    Marriage is a social contract. It can be a religious instrument but it is not exclusively so. My specific concern with what your saying is that it seems you’ve wandered into the thicket of Roman Catholicism where the only “real” marriages are Catholic sacramental marriages. That’s a foolishly medieval daydream. Wake up!

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    If you think the United States Supreme Court is likely to do this during our lifetimes, you’re living in a fantasy world.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    Constitutionality is not a matter of anyone willingly giving up rights, etc.

    Marriage is a religious instrument; as such, the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment prohibits government bodies at all levels from performing any marriage or recognizing any marriage rights, responsibilities or benefits in the legal code. Therefore, the Supreme Court must at some point invalidate all laws relating to marriage, albeit with some exceptions, such as age of consent laws.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    The day straight couples and their families willingly give up all of the legal rights, protections, and responsibilities associated with civil marriage is the day we can talk about whether gay and lesbian couples and their families should, too.

    Until then, it’s a matter entirely of equal rights. And no, we’re not going to stop fighting for them.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    Dratted typos. Fixed, thanks.

  • StraightGrandmother

    I’ll add this in an effort to motivate others.

    I donated $25 & added a 20% Tip.

    I only wish it could be more, but even this small donation when added together with others will help with the legal fees.

    This man is determined to NOT have the County Residents pay, He is doing this on his own and he needs our help.

    Please consider making a donation, here again is the link-

    https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/nmmarriage?refcode=thermometer

    Joe My God posted this yesterday and a lot of people on that blog donated.

  • Mike_in_the_Tundra

    Becca, .58.5% is less than one percent.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/NuMil3Design Nu Mil 3 Design

    Government recognition of any marriage or any marriage rights, responsibilities or benefits in American law are unconstitutional.

    The constitutional support for the argument is made in the article:

    Opinion: Marriage Rights and the US Constitution

    Arm yourself with the fair, equitable and constitutional solution to the marriage rights issue.

© 2014 AMERICAblog News. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS