Defining marriage

Welcome to The Independent Forum. Every week we ask a different question and solicit responses from a diverse group of New Mexico thinkers, pundits and other observers of the state’s political landscape. We’ll add more responses as they come in, so keep checking back to see how the conversation progresses.

We also invite readers to participate — so please share your thoughts on this question in the comments section. If you have suggestions for how we can improve this feature or have have an idea for a future question, send us an e-mail.

As you may have heard, Sen. Bill Sharer, R-Farmington, has sponsored a joint resolution that would attempt to prevent the legalization of gay marriage by amending the constitution. So this week’s question is:

QUESTION: “Should we amend the New Mexico state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman?”

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

I don’t think that intervening in the private affairs of two individuals is the proper role of government. I’d actually like to see marriage return to a private contractual matter between individuals, perhaps their churches, and anyone else THEY want to involve. Particularly with the massive deficits and structural problems facing New Mexico, there are bigger issues to deal with during the coming 30 day session.

TERRI COLE, president and CEO, Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce:

I like Bill Sharer a lot. He’s passionate and works hard for his constituents. I know what he does comes from his heart and I respect that about him. But, I wish we could get all that passion, energy and smarts he has working on some other issues that this state faces. Until we can get a stronger private sector in this state that affords more New Mexicans high wage jobs,  and a world class education for all our students regardless of socio-economic status and really solve the state’s hunger problems, I wonder why he spends so much time on this issue. The chamber has not taken a position on this, so my comments are my own here. But, I know too many highly successful business people who are in committed,  same sex relationships who we serve at the chamber and who serve our community extraordinarily well.  It is difficult for me to justify so much capital on an issue like this one. I say, let’s knock out some solutions to some really basic problems in New Mexico that need fixing instead.

CARTER BUNDY, political action representative, AFSCME:

What I can’t understand are people who talk about Christianity being so eager to judge and discriminate against others just because of who they love. I can’t imagine Jesus being nearly so cruel as to deny things as simple and common as inheritance rights, the right to visit each other in the hospital, and the right to support each other through their working years and retirement.

Nobody’s saying that conservative Christians (or Islamic extremists, who share right-wing Christians’ loathing for gays and cruelty towards these fellow human beings) have to like gays. Just be decent enough to stop treating them like second-class citizens, at least from our government’s point of view. If your church wants to discriminate, that’s absolutely your right. But don’t discriminate with my tax dollars.

Some conservative Christian friends of mine have started to take the approach that maybe government should get out of the “marriage” business altogether, and all government entities, including the feds, should just recognize “civil unions.” Personally, I’d be fine with that. I don’t really care what any church, mosque or synagogue calls a relationship, as long as my tax dollars aren’t being used to discriminate against people just because of who they love.

JIM BACA, blogger, former director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque mayor, state land commissioner and recently retired natural resources trustee:

What is wrong with this picture?  A state constitutional amendment to deny the pursuit of liberty and happiness by a segment  of our citizenry.  All because the people behind this plan think that God, a guy who lives in the clouds with long flowing hair and robes, thinks it should be that way?  If we let this happen then what is next?  Denying women the vote?

This kind of constitutional amendment should promptly be killed in its first committee hearing and relegated to the trash heap of bigotry.

ARTHUR ALPERT, veteran newsman, columnist and blogger:

So modest, the demands of those “small government” conservatives. All they ask is that government tell us who we can (and cannot) marry and what we can (and cannot) do in  the bedroom and…well, you get the idea.

BILL JORDAN, policy director, New Mexico Voices for Children and former theology instructor at a Catholic college:

How timely it is to ponder this question during the week we celebrate the life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Dr. King fought for equal rights for African-Americans at a time when it was not popular to do so—even among his fellow clergy. Discrimination and hatred were rampant, segregation was the law. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states.

Today the fight for equality centers on another group that experiences legalized discrimination. Once again the states are split, some providing full equality for gays and lesbians and some feverishly protecting their right to legally discriminate. New Mexico does not allow gays and lesbians to marry, but neither is it expressly prohibited by our state constitution. Some want to change that and write discrimination into our state’s guiding document.

Just as it happened in the early days of the civil rights movement, churches are found on both sides of this issue. Many who opposed racial equality and interracial marriage did so with religious fervor and the encouragement of their Christian hierarchy. Today’s proponents of legalized discrimination against gay couples are the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops and a number of conservative ‘Christian’ churches.  Supporters of gay marriage include a number of other churches.

Many of us had hoped that the Catholic Church would no longer oppose a domestic partnership bill (not legal marriage) if it was written in a way that did not reference ‘marriage.’  Their demands were met with the writing of a new 900-page bill. Ironically, but not surprisingly, the church announced on MLK Day that they were reneging and will continue to oppose any domestic partner legislation.

In time, I have no doubt that we will win the fight for equality for ALL. Equality will find daylight. In the meantime, many gay couples will suffer the effects of not being able to protect their partners and children from the discrimination caused by not having the rights of a legally binding and protected partnership. But, as Dr. King so rightly noted, when discrimination against anyone is tolerated, discrimination against everyone is possible.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” —Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963