Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> THIS YEAR BROUGHT SEVERAL LAWSUITS FROM GAY
COUPLES SEEKING THE RIGHT TO MARRY IN NEW MEXICO,
ESPECIALLY AFTER THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
EARLIER THIS SUMMER. NOW, EVENTS SHIFTED QUICKLY
RECENTLY FOLLOWING MOVES BY SEVERAL COUNTY CLERKS TO
ISSUE MARRIAGE LICENSES. SOME REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS
HAVE FILED TO STOP THE SAME SEX MARRIAGES.
SOPHIE, THE CLERK IN LOS ALAMOS, FOR EXAMPLE, DID NOT
WANT TO DO THIS. SHE WAS NOT INTO IT AND
SAID -- AND SHE WOULD NOT BE ALONE HERE -- THIS SHOULD BE
A LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, THIS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY THE
COURTS. BUT THEN A JUDGE CAME RIGHT
BACK AND SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU DO NEED TO, IN
FACT, START ISSUING LICENSES.
WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE ARGUMENT HERE?
IF CLERKS CANNOT ON THEIR OWN STOP THESE THINGS
ANYMORE, IS IT ESSENTIALLY OVER?
IS THAT IT? >> I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE
ARE RIGHT NOW SEEING THIS SITUATION BEING HANDLED
COUNTY BY COUNTY WITH THE DIFFERENT CLERKS DOING IT ON
THEIR OWN, AND THIS MAYBE HIGHLIGHTS FOR US MORE THAN
ANYTHING THE NEED FOR THIS ISSUE TO MAKE IT ALL THE WAY
UP TO THE SUPREME COURT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE
MARRIAGE EQUALITY ADVOCATES HAVE BEEN SAYING FROM THE
BEGINNING, SINCE BEFORE DONA ANA COUNTY, THAT CLERK
STEPPED FORWARD AND STARTED ISSUING THE LICENSES.
IT MAY FEEL THAT THAT KIND OF BROKE THROUGH THE DAM,
BUT, IN FACT, THESE CASES WERE HEADING UP TOWARDS THE
SUPREME COURT WELL BEFORE HE STARTED ISSUING LICENSES
DOWN IN LAS CRUCES. AND I THINK THAT THEY MAKE
AN IMPORTANT POINT. THERE DO, IN MY OPINION,
SEEM TO BE PROTECTIONS IN STATE LAW, AND TO A CERTAIN
EXTENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION, THAT SUGGEST TO ME THAT OUR
SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO SAY THAT THIS IS A
PROTECTED -- >> WHAT WOULD THAT IN
ESSENCE DO? IS THAT FINALITY-FINALITY
WHEN THE SUPREME COURT WEIGHS IN, OR IS THAT AS
GOOD AS WE'RE GOING TO GET IN THIS SITUATION?
>> WELL, NO, BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS THE OPTION --
THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS THAT THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
VOTERS COULD PURSUE. SO WE GO UP TO THE SUPREME
WITH THE CASES -- NOT WE, BUT THE CASES; I'M NOT
AFFILIATED WITH THEM -- GO UP TO THE SUPREME COURT, THE
SUPREME COURT SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THIS LAW ON
THE BOOKS AND OUR CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE
RIGHTS OF GAYS AND LESBIANS TO BE MARRIED IN THE STATE
OF NEW MEXICO, THEY ISSUE THEIR RULING.
THE LEGISLATURE COULD GO BACK AND THEY COULD SAY, AND
THIS HAS BEEN PROPOSED IN THE PAST, WE WANT TO SEE A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IN NEW MEXICO, LEGISLATURE
PASSES IT, AND THEN IT GOES TO THE VOTING PUBLIC IN NEW
MEXICO, AND THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO PASS THE AMENDMENT.
I THINK IT'S VERY UNLIKELY THAT IT MAKES IT OUT OF THE
LEGISLATURE TO THE VOTING PUBLIC.
I THINK IF IT MAKES IT TO THE VOTING PUBLIC, I DON'T
THINK IT GETS PASSED. >> MILAN, THE LAST TIME YOU
WERE HERE, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS VERY ISSUE, THE IDEA OF
THE LEGISLATURE GETTING INVOLVED WITH THIS AND THEIR
FINGERPRINTS, BUT YOUR THOUGHTS THEN ABOUT THE IDEA
OF WHAT SOPHIE JUST MENTIONED, ITS CHANCES OF
GETTING OUT, THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
GETTING OUT TO THE PUBLIC. ARE YOU IN THE SAME PLACE
THAT YOU DON'T THINK IT WOULD PASS OUT OF THE
LEGISLATURE AS IT STANDS NOW?
>> IT LOST IN THE COMMITTEE 7-4, AND TWO DEMOCRATS
HELPED KILL IT. IT WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME.
BUT I THINK THIS IS NOW VERY PARTISAN.
YOU HAVE SOME CLERKS SAYING NO, AND SOME CLERKS SAYING
YES. IT'S LIKE GEORGE WALLACE AT
THE SCHOOLHOUSE DOOR SAYING NO.
IT IS NO LONGER A QUESTION OF LAW, IT'S A QUESTION OF
POLITICAL POSTURING. THAT'S WHY THE SUPREME COURT
COULD HAVE TAKEN THIS CASE INSTANTLY, AND DECIDED NOT
TO. IT SAID, WE WANT DISTRICT
JUDGES TO HANDLE IT. NOW THE DISTRICT JUDGES ARE
HANDLING IT, AND YOU HAVE OBJECTIONS TO THAT.
>> SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE LEGISLATORS?
YOU'VE GOT THESE TWO ENTITIES, AND THE
LEGISLATURE IS IN THE MIDDLE, IT SEEMS TO ME.
DO THEY JUST STAND PAT? >> THEY WON'T STAND PAT.
THERE'LL BE BOTH SIDES. I DON'T KNOW IF SO MUCH THE
PROPONENTS OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE WILL TRY AGAIN, BUT
CERTAINLY THE OPPONENTS WILL.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY CAN GET ANYTHING THROUGH TO THE
BALLOT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT'S A SHORT SESSION COMING
UP. THE CHANCES OF THAT
HAPPENING ARE PROBABLY LOW. BUT THE SUPREME COURT WILL
HAVE TO DECIDE IT, BECAUSE WE DO NOW HAVE A PIECEMEAL
SYSTEM THAT IS HIGHLY PARTISAN.
>> DIANE, IT'S INTERESTING TO THINK ABOUT THIS.
I'LL BET FOR YOU, IT'S LIKE, OH, IF I WAS IN THE
LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW. IT'S A DIFFICULTY, IT WOULD
SEEM TO ME, FOR THE LEGISLATURE.
>> IT'S THE WHOLE PROCESS, AND MILAN IS RIGHT, IT
HASN'T PASSED INSIDE THE COMMITTEE.
BUT ONE OF THE KEY FACTORS THAT YOU NEED TO BE AWARE OF
IS THAT WAS BECAUSE OF THE DEMOCRATS.
THAT WAS A CHURCH RELATED SITUATION WITH THOSE VOTES.
>> MEANING WHAT? >> MEANING THAT THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH TOOK A STAND AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE, AND
THESE ARE VERY STRONG CATHOLICS, BOTH SIDES.
>> SO SOME OF THOSE DEMOCRATS REPRESENTED
AREAS -- >> SOME OF THOSE DEMOCRATS
VOTED AGAINST THE BILL, THAT'S PART OF IT.
I PROMISE YOU IT IS. THAT'S THE REASON THEY USE,
ANYWAY. THE DIFFERENCE IS, THOUGH, A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS TWO DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF
THOUGHT, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK BACK AT WHENEVER IT WAS,
2003, I GUESS, WHEN THE LEGISLATURE PASSED WHAT
EVERYBODY CALLED STEALING THE LAND TRUST FUND FOR
EDUCATION, THAT PASSED IN THE SENATE AND WE HAD 18
REPUBLICANS AT THAT TIME, BECAUSE REPUBLICANS CROSSED
OVER AND SAID, THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE.
THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE, MAJOR DIFFERENCE I SEE, IS
WHETHER IT WOULD PASS OR NOT.
WILL A GAY MARRIAGE BILL, OR EVEN A DEFINITION OF --
WHAT'S DOMA? >> DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.
>> THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, THAT'S NOT GOING TO
PASS, EITHER. BUT ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO
VOTE MIGHT. I BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE A
CHANCE. >> JAVIER BENAVIDEZ, I KNOW
SOME FOLKS WHO ARE PRO GAY MARRIAGE WHO DO NOT WANT
THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, TO HAVE IT PUT UP TO THE PEOPLE OF
NEW MEXICO, BECAUSE THEY FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE A LOT
CLOSER, IF NOT A LOSING PROPOSITION WITHOUT A TON OF
MONEY IN THERE. YOUR SENSE OF THAT IF THIS,
IN FACT, DOES COME TO PASS. >> I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
YOU DON'T PUT CIVIL RIGHTS ON THE BALLOT.
CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF WE WOULD
HAVE PUT THE JIM CROW LAWS BACK IN THE 1950S ON THE
BALLOT. SO I THINK IT'S GOING TO
TAKE SOME TIME. I THINK PEOPLE ARE COMING
AROUND, LEGISLATORS INCLUDED.
I GOT TO BE AT THE EVENT WHERE THEY CELEBRATED THE
FIRST BERNALILLO COUNTY LICENSES, AND IT WAS JUST
POWERFUL TO BE A PART OF SUCH AN INCREDIBLE TIME IN
OUR STATE'S HISTORY. IT'S BEEN A VERY GRASSROOTS
MOVEMENT, PATCHWORK ONLY BECAUSE IT'S BEEN FROM THE
BOTTOM UP, NOT FROM THE TOP DOWN.
BUT THE SUPREME COURT IS THE END GOAL, AND I THINK THAT'S
COMING AROUND VERY SOON. >> WHO COULD HAVE THOUGHT
IT WOULD HAPPEN THIS QUICKLY AT THIS POINT FOR THE
CLERKS, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?
SO TOO SOON IS NOT AN EXAGGERATION BY ANY STRETCH.
NOW, IN A MOMENT WE'RE BACK TO TALK ABOUT THIS YEAR'S
TEDX ABQ EVENT WITH THE CURATOR AND TWO OF THIS
YEAR'S SPEAKERS. STAY WITH US.