In a recent online conversation, my friend and fellow blogger Barbara Wold, of the blog Democracy for New Mexico, explained why civil union or gay marriage legislation at the federal level is important for people in lesbian or gay relationships:

Being a Lesbian, I personally don’t care what the civil contract (license) that brings all those local, state and federal benefits and protections is called, as long as the contract provides exactly the same civil rights, benefits and responsibilities that heteros get. What passes for a so-called civil union now is limited to the state in which it’s entered into and doesn’t have any effect on federal benefits like Social Security survivor or dependent benefits, just for starters. Many other things that are included in hetero marriage aren’t there.



Cross the state line and the "civil union" doesn’t mean a thing. Get in a car wreck in another state with your partner and you might not be able to enter the ER to see them if they’re injured. No guarantees. It’s all up to the hospital personnel.



For most of my life I wasn’t interested in gay marriage, partly for the reasons marjorie discusses. However, now that my partner of 18 years and I are getting on in age, things like Social Security, health insurance from my partner’s employer, etc. have become much more important and we are very aware of what we’re missing legally that other partnerships take for granted.

In light of these comments, I was interested to read the positions regarding gay marriage of the candidates for Albuquerque’s CD1 race, in today’s Albuquerque Journal.



All of the Democratic candidates said gay couples should have the same "civil rights" as hetero-couples, but most would not support gay marriage. The two Republican candidates spoke of ensuring the right of gay couples to enter into private civil contracts to arrange their legal matters, and both are opposed to gay marriage.



Robert Pidcock was the only of the six contenders who said it was discriminatory for government to deny a marriage license to gay couples. He said:

I see marriage as a government license that the government issues that no one should be denied. If a church wants to refuse to marry people in the church, that’s a church’s right. The government shouldn’t deny a simple government license to a group of people based on the fact that majority right now— apparently— doesn’t believe gay people shouldn’t marry because of religious belief.



Martin Heinrich says he’s "not supportive of gay marriage," but he does support ensuring the same civil rights for everybody. He also said that "people get confused" about the role of government. It should be an equal protection issue on the government side and then let each church have its own approach, he said. Heinrich’s position seems to support the notion that marriage should be the province of churches, but doesn’t address the point that marriage licenses are currently issued by the state.



Vigil-Giron was the only one who said civil union legislation was necessary at the federal level, saying the rights involved were "basic." But she was also the only one who wouldn’t discuss gay marriage or who wouldn’t answer the question of whether or not she would vote for federal legislation attempting to define marriage as a male/female union, commonly called the "Defense of Marriage Act." The other three Democratic candidates all said they would not support that kind of federal legislation.



Michelle Lujan-Grisham said that marriage should be left to the states, but that she would support any bills in Congress in support of same sex unions. Of all the candidates, her words were the most passionate, saying that the gay and lesbian community could count her as a "positive supporter."



On the Republican side, both Joe Carraro and Darren White were almost identical in their positions. Both would vote for federal legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and they both think marriage should stay under the purview of states. At the same time, they both say they support the right of gay couples to enter into private civil contracts to create legal arrangements regarding their relationships.