Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 21:09:11 -0700 From: Mojotro@aol.com (by way of summers@rt66.com (Bob Summersgill)) Subject: (USA, NM) Anti-Marriage Legilslation Well, we've been expecting this one- so happy we've not been disappointed by the forces of bigotry. A resolution to amend Article 20 of the New Mexico Constitution has been introduced.... Here is the Bill: Senate Joint Resolution 10 42nd Legislature - State of New Mexico - Second Session, 1996 Introduced by Richard Lee Rawson A Joint Resolution: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 20 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO TO PROHIBIT THE SOLEMNIZING OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES AND TO REQUIRE THAT ALL SAME-SEX MARRIAGES RECOGNIZED AS VALID IN ANOTHER STATE BE CONSIDERED INVALID IN THIS STATE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO: Section 1. It is proposed to amend Article 20 of the constitution of New Mexico by adding a new section to read: "No person authorized by the laws of this state to solemnize marriages shall knowingly unite persons of the same sex in marriage. All same-sex marriages that are valid according to the laws of another state shall be considered invalid in this state." Section 2. The amendment proposed by this resolution shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at the next general election or at any special election prior to that date which may be called for that purpose. ********************************* WE THINK WE HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF KILLING THIS CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL BILL IN ITS FIRST COMMITTEE. THIS IS WHAT WE NEED: 1. WE NEED LETTERS- PLEASE DON'T CALL YET-WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS CALM, COOL AND DIGNIFIED (at least on our side-always we must be more dignified than the opposition-not hard in this case) TO SEE IF WE CAN'T MAKE IT GO AWAY WITHOUT A FIRESTORM. WE HAVE A WEEK BEFORE THE COMMITTEE: PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE AND TO MEMBERS OF SENATE RULES COMMITTEE..(.I will include talking points on the bill at the end of this message) Write: Senator's Name Capitol Building Santa Fe, NM 87503 THE BASIS GIST OF YOUR LETTER SHOULD BE THAT... IT IS UN-AMERICAN TO SINGLE OUT A MINORITY FOR UNEQUAL TREATMENT AND THIS IS WHAT SJR 10 DOES. THE RIGHTS OF A MINORITY ARE NOT UP TO THE VOTING WHIM OF THE MAJORITY-THIS IS THE BASIS OF ALL OF OUR CONSTITUTIONS YOU DON'T WANT YOUR CHURCH'S OR SYNAGOGUE'S RIGHTS BE LIMITED BY BEING TOLD THEY CANNOT PERFORM SAME SEX MARRIAGES AND COMMITMENT CEREMONIES (if they in fact do). 2. WE NEED PEOPLE FROM THE DISTRICTS OR AT LEAST THE AREA OF EACH OF THE MEMBER OF SENATE RULES TO GET MAIL FROM THEIR CONSTITUENTS. 3. WE NEED A PERSON FROM EACH OF THE DISTRICTS OR AREAS OF EACH MEMBER OF SENATE RULES AND FROM THE SPONSORS DISTRICT TO ATTEND THE COMMITTEE HEARING AND STAND IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL (we think it will come up in committee the week after next). IF YOU ARE FROM ANY OF THE RULES COMMITTEE MEMBERS DISTRICTS AND YOU WANT TO ATTEND THE HEARING PLEASE CALL 505-242-6781 AND I WILL GET BACK WITH YOU. GOT FRIENDS IN THESE PLACES PLEASE CALL THEM. SENATE RULES: CHAIR: 1. MANNY ARAGON (D) : ALBUQUERQUE, DISTRICT 14 (Bernalillo) 2. TOM RUTHERFORD (D): ALBUQUERQUE, DISTRICT 16 3. GLORIA HOWES (D): GALLUP, DISTRICT 4 (McKinley & San Juan) 4. BEN ALTAMIRANO (D): SILVER CITY, DISTRICT 28 (Catron, Grants & Socorro) 5. CYNTHIA NAVA (D): MESQUITE, DISTRICT 31 (Dona Ana) 6. TOM WRAY (R): ALBUQUERQUE, DISTRICT 21 (Bernalillo) 7. CHRISTINE DONISTHORPE (R): BLOOMFIELD, DISTRICT 2 (San Juan) 8. RICHARD ROMERO (D): ALBUQUERQUE, DISTRICT 12 (Bernalillo) SPONSOR: LEONARD RAWSON: LAS CRUCES, DISTRICT 37 (Dona Ana, Otero & Sierra) TALKING POINTS: WHAT'S WRONG WITH Senate Joint Resolution 10... * SJR 10 would violate the United State's and New Mexico's equal protection clauses by singling out a minority group (gays and lesbians) for less favorable governmental treatment. * SJR 10 would be a majoritarian action that would "fence out" an identifiable minority from the benefits of citizenship. According to the Supreme Court of the Untied States, it would be subject to the most searching constitutional review. * SJR 10 would put the rights of a minority to the vote of the majority. The very nature of constitutions protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. * SJR 10 would violate The Equal Rights Amendment of the NM Constitution which guarantees that no public benefit shall be granted or withheld based solely on the sex of the citizen. * SJR 10 violates the separation of church and state, and freedom of expression and religion. It would disallow all New Mexico religious institutions from performing the same sex marriage and commitment ceremonies they now perform. This would effect many Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Jewish, Quaker, Unitarian, Metropolitan Community and Charismatic congregations -who now perform these marriage and commitment ceremonies for their congregants. * SJR 10 would violate the "inherent rights" clause of New Mexico's Constitution which guarantees a broad range of personal liberties, including privacy. * SJR 10 would deny only gays and lesbians the legality of their marriages breaching the full faith and credit clause of the New Mexico Constitution. * SJR 10 is both constitutionally and fiscally irresponsible. If passed, SJR 10 would surely be challenged as unconstitutional, either before or after being sent to voters. The state would be tied up for years in extremely costly, and unsuccessful, litigation. For more information contact, The coalition for Gay and Lesbian Rights in New Mexico,-Linda Siegle 471-3563 OR Martha Trolin 242-6781.