Same-sex marriage (SSM) in New Mexico:
More reactions to the NM Supreme Court ruling.
Conflicts about the role of the courts.
Conflicts about the functions of marriage.
Senator Sharer (R) files bill to add anti-SSM clause
to the New Mexico Constitution.
U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeal.
Discussion of his topic is continued from the previous essay
2013-DEC-19: More reactions to the NM Supreme Court's decision:
Steve Terrell of Santa Fe New Mexican wrote:
- "Gov. Susana Martinez, not a supporter of marriage equality, issued a statement calling for both sides of the issue to show each other respect. She said:
'My personal views on this issue are well-known, and I’m confident that most New Mexicans believe, like I do, that it should have been settled by a vote of the people. Instead, the Supreme Court stepped in and rendered their decision. ...'
'As we move forward, I am hopeful that we will not be divided, as we must come together to tackle very pressing issues, like reforming education and growing our economy, in the weeks and months ahead.'
- The web site of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Santa Fe states:
'The bishops of New Mexico recognize the New Mexico Supreme Court as the interpreter of the State Constitution. The Catholic Church respects and loves the gay and lesbian members of our community. We will continue to promote Catholic teaching of the Biblical definition of marriage to be that of one man and one woman.'
- Brian Brown, president of National Organization for Marriage, issued a statement saying:
'Once again, activists judges have thrown out the historic legal understanding of marriage in New Mexico. This is a continuation of a very dangerous rush towards silencing people of faith who simply believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman'."
Two conflicting opinions about the role of the New Mexico Supreme Court:
Two conflicting opinions about the purpose of marriage:
The main difference of belief between the plaintiffs and defendants relates to the basic purpose of marriage:
- The plaintiffs in this case consist of five same-sex couples who feel that all loving, committed couples should be able to marry, whether they be of the same-sex or opposite-sex, subject to the usual legal requirements such as age. They view marriage as a fundamental right for all couples who are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to each other.
- Those opposed to same-sex marriage are mostly religious conservatives whose interpretation of their Holy Book -- the Bible, Hebrew Scriptures, Qur'an. etc. -- convinces them that God has a plan for marriage. His plan only includes marriage by opposite-sex couples, and the procreation of children by the couple alone. However, because of the principle of separation of church and state which lies at the foundation of United States constitutional law, such an argument is without value in the courts. Rather, those opposed to SSM assert that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is related to the fundamental state governmental interests of "responsible procreation and childbearing."
They regard one man marrying one woman, engaging in sexual intercourse, conceiving one or more children, and raising them in an intact family with both their genetic mother and father present is "responsible procreation and childbearing." For a same-sex married couple to raise children -- whether conceived via artificial insemination or in-vitro fertilization, or adopted, or procreated in an earlier marriage, or procreated via a surrogate mother -- is presumably "irresponsible procreation and childbearing" because children are not raised with both their genetic mother and genetic father present. They believe that the state has every right to interfere, restrict, and ban such marriages. Many, many dozens of studies over an interval of many years had reached the conclusion that the outcome of children depends primarily on the love exhibited by parents and not the gender makeup of the parents.
Justice Chavez wrote in his ruling that:
"We conclude that the purpose of New Mexico marriage laws is to bring stability and order to the legal relationship of committed couples by defining their rights and responsibilities as to one another, their children if they choose to raise children together, and their property. Prohibiting same-gender marriages is not substantially related to the governmental interests advanced by the parties opposing same-gender marriage or to the purposes we have identified. Therefore, barring individuals from marrying and depriving them of the rights, protections, and responsibilities of civil marriage solely because of their sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause under Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution. We hold that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections, and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law.
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above
essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
- Lisa Keen, "NM Supreme Court: Marriage Equality A Reality for Same-Sex Couples," The Rainbow Times, 2013-DEC-19. at: http://www.therainbowtimesmass.com/
- Aaron Blake, "New Mexico Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage," Washington Post, 2013-DEC-19, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
- "NM County Officials Resign Over Marriage Equality," The Rainbow Times, 2013-DEC-20. at: http://www.therainbowtimesmass.com/
- Text of the "New Mexico Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage," Scribd, 2013-DEC-19, at:
- Bethany Monk, "New Mexico Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage," CitizenLink, 2013-DEC-19, at: http://www.citizenlink.com/
- Steve Terrell, "Gay marriage allowed in New Mexico," Santa Fe New Mexican, 2013-DEC-29, at: http://www.santafenewmexican.com/
- Steve Terrell, "Lawmaker files proposal for amendment to ban gay marriage," Santa Fe New Mexican, 2013-DEC-21, at: http://www.santafenewmexican.com/
- David G. Savage, "Supreme Court won't hear appeal of New Mexico gay bias case," Los Angeles Times, 2014-APR-07, at: http://www.latimes.com/
Copyright © 2013 & 2014 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Originally written: 2013-DEC-20
Latest update: 2014-APR-09
Author: B.A. Robinson