Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> 14 STATES PLUS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAVE MADE SAME SEX
MARRIAGE LEGAL. 35 STATES HAVE BANNED IT.
NEW MEXICO IS UNIQUE IN BEING THE ONLY STATE THAT DOES NOT
HAVE A LAW OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT EITHER AUTHORIZING
OR FORBIDDING MARRIAGE BETWEEN SAME SEX COUPLES.
>> FIVE NEW MEXICO JUSTICES HEARD OVER TWO HOURS OF ORAL
ARGUMENT ON THE STATE'S AMBIGUOUS MARRIAGE LAWS WE
JUST SPOKE ABOUT. COULD BE SOON OR SEVERAL
MONTHS, SUPREME COURT ISSUES DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT THE
STATE MUST RECOGNIZE SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
ANTOINETTE, ONCE THE COURT RULES, WILL THAT BE THE
DEFINITIVE ANSWER AND PEEL BACK AND TALK ABOUT THE
ARGUMENT BUT SETTLE THAT FIRST.
>> IT DEPENDS WHAT THEY RULE. IF THEY RULE THAT THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THE EXTENSION OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE
TO SAME SEX COUPLES, IT IS OVER.
WELL, IT WILL HAPPEN WHENEVER THEY ORDER IT TO HAPPEN.
NOW, IT COULD BE THAT LEGISLATORS WOULD TRY TO PASS
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OR GET IT ON THE BALLOT IN WHICH
CASE, YOU WOULD HAVE YET ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION BUT IT WOULD BE QUICK.
IF THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES NOT TO RULE THAT WAY, THEN ONE
WAY THEY COULD DO IT IS PUSH IT TO THE LEGISLATURE AND THEN
THE LEGISLATURE COULD PASS SOMETHING.
THEY HAVE BEEN A LONG, LONG TIME FAILING TO PASS ANYTHING
ON DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP, THAT IS WHY WE'RE IN THIS FIX.
EITHER WAY, THEY JUST DIDN'T DO ANYTHING FOR YEARS.
SO, I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT THEY ARE IN A PLACE OF BEING
ABLE TO PASS IT NOW. >> THERE IS AN INTERESTING
QUESTION, JUSTICE CHAVEZ WHO ASKED, WHY ARE YOU ASKING US?
WHY HAVE YOU BROUGHT IT TO US? >> WHY IS THIS PUBLIC POLICY?
>> WHY DIDN'T THIS GO TO THE LEGISLATURE, HE ASKED MORGAN
SANDERS THAT QUESTION. >> THE RESPONSE WAS, THEY
HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING. >> ANTOINETTE'S POINT, IF THEY
ARE FORCED TO DO SO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE LEGISLATURE
TO THE SUPREME COURT. DOES IT SERVE THE COURT BETTER
TO COME OUT WITH A RULING AND STAY OUT OF THEIR HAIR OR CAN
YOU JUST PUNT? >> I DON'T THINK THE SUPREME
COURT EVER JUST PUNTS. THAT IS KIND OF NOT THEIR DEAL,
THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IF THEY ISSUE A
RULING IT WILL BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE DECIDED THIS IS THE RIGHT
TIME, THESE ARE THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO BRING THIS QUESTION
BEFORE THE COURT. THIS IS A DECISION THAT NEEDS
TO BE MADE AND I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS PARTICULARLY
INTERESTING TO SEE THE CLERK OF NEW MEXICO COME BEFORE THE
COURT AND SAY, NO, REALLY, WE NEED THIS ANSWER TOO.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS A PARTICULARLY COMPELLING REASON
AND THAT IS LARGELY, I THINK, WHY IT CAME BEFORE THE COURT
AT THIS TIME; THAT PLEA. >> INTERESTING WHENEVER THESE
THINGS START, YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO GET A LIVE STREAM IT
IS EXCITING AND REMINDS BACK IN CALIFORNIA WHEN THEY LIVE
STREAMED THEIR BIG TO-DO AND AS A NON-ATTORNEY I WAS LIKE
AFTER HALF AN HOUR, I WAS LIKE, I DON'T THINK I GET MUCH
OF THIS, BUT, I AM LISTENING ANYWAY.
>> AND THAT IS COOL BUT THE IDEA THAT, YOU KNOW, TO ARGUE
THESE KIND OF THINGS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WAS SOMEWHAT
GALLING FOR SOME FOLKS BECAUSE IT IS ALMOST LIKE A PERSONAL
AFFRONT. I WANT TO MARRY THIS PERSON,
WHY DOES IT HAVE TO GET THIS FAR BUT IT HAS, AND HERE WE
ARE NOW. DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT, AGAIN,
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FINALITY HERE OR IS THIS GOING TO KEEP
POKING ALONG AT SOME LEVEL, NOW THAT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH
THIS? >> WE HAVE REACHED CRITICAL
MASS, SOCIETY-WISE, ANYWAY. AND, I THINK THE LEGAL
COMMUNITY IS SCRAMBLING TO KEEP UP RIGHT NOW.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, YOU
KNOW, ONCE THE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG, I MEAN, WE HAVE ALL
THESE MARRIED COUPLES WALKING AROUND HERE AND MORE
IMPORTANTLY WE HAVE MARRIED COUPLES IN SOME COUNTIES OF
NEW MEXICO AND THEN PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO THE SAME IN OTHER
COUNTIES WHO AREN'T ALLOWED TO.
AND, LIKE YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY CLERKS ARE BEGGING
FOR A DECISION, EITHER WAY. >> ABSOLUTELY.
>> LET ME SWING DAN IN HERE, TIGHT ON TIME ON THIS ONE.
DID YOU HEAR ANYTHING IN THOSE ARGUMENTS THAT MADE YOU THINK
THERE IS SOME DECISION THAT WILL HAPPEN EITHER WAY, ANY
CLUES? >> WELL, I THINK IF I WAS A
BETTING MAN IN LINE IN VEGAS, THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO
RULE IN FAVOR OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
YOU KNOW, I WAS A LITTLE TAKEN ABACK BY SOME OF THE QUESTIONS
BY THE JUSTICES. I THOUGHT THEY HAD MORE OF A
POLITICAL TONE, LIKE, TELL ME ABOUT OUTCOMES AMONG GAY
PARENTS, THINGS THAT I DON'T THINK, THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS
IS ABOUT. TAKE THE ISSUE OFF, THE NAME
OF THE ISSUE. I DON'T THINK IT IS THE
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES JOB TO BE A MINI LEGISLATURE.
IF THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT ACTING, THERE IS A REASON.
WE HAVE THINGS CALLED ELECTIONS.
YOU ELECT THOSE PEOPLE. I THINK THAT THIS IS MY
FRUSTRATION WITH OUR SUPREME COURT AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM,
THAT IT IS BECOMING A MINI LEGISLATURE.
PEOPLE ARE USING IT TO ADDRESS POLITICAL ISSUES
INSTEAD OF THE QUESTION SHOULD BE, WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?
IF THE LAW IS NOT CLEAR, THEN, YOU SHOULD MAKE THE LAW CLEAR
IS MY OPINION. >> EQUAL PROTECTION; IT IS A
LEGAL ISSUE. ALSO, I THINK, THE SOCIAL
ISSUES COME IN WHEN YOU HAVE FOLKS OF SAME SEX
MARRIAGE SAYING THINGS LIKE MARRIAGE IS FOR PROCREATION
ONLY AND IF YOU RAISE A CHILD IN A HOME WITH TWO GAY
PARENTS, YOU KNOW, THIS, AND THIS AND THIS IS GOING TO
HAPPEN AND IT IS BAD. I THINK THAT IS WHY PEOPLE ARE
TALKING ABOUT -- >> YOU CAN ALMOST FEEL THAT
BIT COMING AS IF YOU HAVE TO CROSS THE RIVER TO GET ON THE
OTHER SIDE. >> WE CROSSED THAT RIVER 45
YEARS AGO. THE QUESTION IS WHY IS NEW
MEXICO NOT PASSING THE LAW AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE PUNTING, I THINK IT SHOULD BE DONE
LEGISLATIVELY NOT JUDICIALLY. >> FAIR ENOUGH, THERE IS TWO
SIDES.