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.
Passing domestic partnerships in New Mexico was always considered an uphill climb leading into this year’s 30-day legislative session.
With the state swimming in the red, many state lawmakers viewed fixing the budget as their first priority.
Then there was the size of this year’s domestic partnerships bill, a whopping 825 pages, making it a tome likely to go unread by all but the most conscientious, and studious, lawmakers. It enumerates every right conferred to same-sex couples while avoiding any mention of “marriage.”
Add those two factors to the small window – 30 days — state lawmakers have to reach a budget agreement to fix next year’s shortfall, variously estimated between $500 million to $900 million.
And achieving success resembled a taxing, if not tortuous, path.
Now, with the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops adding its voice to the opposition, suddenly advocates have found themselves scaling Mt. Everest without an oxygen tank.
Even lawmakers supportive of the legislation privately say the domestic partnerships bill is DOA.
Supporters and opponents are ignoring the signs for now and, in an ironic twist, agree on one thing: Nothing is dead until the final gavel comes down on a legislative session.
“This bill is not dead. We never know whose hearts or minds we’re going to change,” said Linda Siegle, a lobbyist at the center of the push for New Mexico to create domestic partnerships.
“Oh, nothing is dead,” agreed Sen. William Sharer, R-Farmington, the sponsor of a resolution this year to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Sharer said he would stay on the lookout all session for a miraculous last-minute resurrection.
“Even after a session is over, a bill isn’t dead,” Sharer said.
Advocates of domestic partnerships had hoped 2010 would lead to a different result than in the past.
Last year’s domestic partnerships bill died in the state Senate by eight votes, largely due to the decision by the Catholic Church to jump into the debate after staying neutral in the previous two sessions.
Several Democratic lawmakers mentioned the Church’s stance when asked last year about their opposition.
Advocates this year hoped to avert last year’s failure by working up a bill that avoided the highly charged word “marriage” and that enumerated every right conferred on same-sex couples, which caused for the legislation’s length.
Avoiding the word “marriage,” advocates hoped, might persuade the Church to revert to its previous neutrality.
But that didn’t occur.
“In November the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops put out a pastoral letter” that instructed bishops to not give any ground “that would lead to same sex marriage,” said Allen Sanchez, spokesman for the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Sanchez said that watching what has happened across the country over the past two years persuaded church leaders that a law creating domestic partnerships would give supporters a legal foothold to push for same-sex marriage.
The top courts in Connecticut and California during 2008 ruled that domestic partnerships – or civil unions in the case of Connecticut – were inherently legally unfair and were not the same as marriage. Citing equal protection under the law, each state’s Supreme Court struck down the laws creating domestic partnerships. The courts also found a “fundamental right to marry” and ruled that marriage was available to gay and lesbian couples.
Voters in California later overturned that decision, a ruling that now is being challenged in federal court.
“They started to look at how could something be written that would not be a stepping stone for a lawsuit … for marriage,” Sanchez said. “Last year’s bill and the way this one’s been interpreted is a stepping stone for marriage.”
“What you need to beef up a lawsuit, you need some kind of statute passed granting benefits or rights,” Sanchez said. “And then you say you can’t have two (water) fountains – separate but unequal.”
The church’s decision still left some advocates stunned.
“After indicating that they would consider a neutral stance on the bill if all reference to ‘marriage’ was removed, the archdiocese now refuses to collaborate with equality advocates outright,” the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement this week.
“The ACLU and allied partners did everything humanly possible to satisfy their concerns about the language of the bill, and still the archdiocese would not budge. It is a shame that such a powerful voice has chosen to speak out against equality and fairness for New Mexican families.”
