I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
Could this happen in New Mexico? A newly domestic-partnered couple in California, as of this past February. (Photo by Jeff Tabaco/Flickr)
SANTA FE — Domestic partnerships could be on the agenda for the Legislature’s special session this fall, Gov. Bill Richardson said Tuesday.
“The domestic partnerships bill, I want to make it part of my legacy,” Richardson said Tuesday after a news conference.
Richardson’s receptiveness to including the issue on the fall docket comes after weeks of rumors that supporters and some opponents of the measure were working to forge a compromise in time for the special session.
Richardson acknowledged the ongoing negotiations Tuesday between the Catholic Church and supporters of partnerships, saying that the two sides were “looking at defining exactly the domestic partner responsibilities, exactly what it means.”
“I haven’t seen the results,” he said of the negotiations. “I think the Catholic Church has been positive in their negotiations. I encourage them to do that. If we have a possible consensus I will put it on the call.”
The ongoing push for domestic partnerships in New Mexico comes a little over a month after lawmakers failed to pass a domestic partnerships bill. The legislation would have created for same-sex couples the same system of rights available to married couples.
After sitting on the sidelines for two years, the New Mexico Catholic Church came out against the bill in this year’s legislative session. The reason, its spokesman said, was that domestic partnerships had led to marriage in other states, specifically in Connecticut and California. (California voters in November banned same-sex marriage with a referendum.)
One lawmaker who supports domestic partnerships said advocates hope Richardson will place the issue on the special session agenda. But passing it will still be a fight, said Rep. Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque.
“We always have people missing,” Stewart said. “We may have people missing and on an issue where every vote counts” that could be problematic.
She added that media coverage raising questions about how the passage of same sex marriage in other states affects the campaign for domestic partnerships in New Mexico don’t help.
“That was the problem with getting it passed,” Stewart said. “I want people to stop misunderstanding what the bill does. It is not marriage.”
Supporters and opponents of domestic partnerships argued constantly during this year’s session over whether domestic partnerships were actually marriage by another name.
Supporters said they weren’t, while opponents argued that they were.
Richardson’s acknowledgment that the issue might come up during the special session comes amid a somewhat changed national landscape in the debate of whether same-sex couples should be able to marry or at least have access to a parallel system of rights.
In the last few days, Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia have joined Massachusetts and Connecticut as states that recognize same sex marriage.
Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize marriage for same-sex couples.
That happened when that state’s Senate and House of Representatives overrode Gov. Jim Douglas‘ veto of same-sex marriage legislation; the House by a vote of 100-49, the Senate by a 23-5 vote.
Iowa, meanwhile, legalized same sex marriage Friday when its top court ruled unanimously to overturn Iowa’s law limiting marriage rights to opposite-sex couples.
