« DPNM State Central Committee Meeting Today | Main | New Mexico Dems Re-Elect Officer Slate; Brian Colón Gives Powerhouse Acceptance Speech »
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Gay Marriage Resolution Passed by Democratic Party of New Mexico's State Central Committee
Brian Colon gets emotional about core Democratic values during acceptance speech; John Padilla holding sign
It was quite a day to be a Democrat. The Democratic Party of New Mexico's State Central Committee -- of which Mary Ellen and I are members -- passed a same-sex marriage resolution at its meeting today as part of a package of 38 platform resolutions. The vote was overwhelmingly in favor, with 309 members voting for the package and only 35 voting against it. Quite a display of strong support for marriage equality.
Those voting no included State Senator Richard Martinez of Espanola, who has been an outspoken foe of GLBT civil rights. Martinez represents the 5th District, which includes parts of Rio Arriba, Los Alamos and Santa Fe Counties. Sen. Martinez also chairs the Democratic Party of Rio Arriba County. A fair share of the no votes came from the delegates congregating around Sen. Martinez in the auditorium, with others scattered around the hall.
An attempt was made by former NM-02 congressional candidate Al Kissling to break the marriage equality resolution out of the package so it could be considered on its own, but that effort was quickly squelched by a large majority of SCC members who voted to table Kissling's motion.
While the resolution was still on the floor, Daniel Ivy Soto of Albuquerque made a successful motion to amend the original resolution, replacing the term "gay marriage" with "marriage equality." The Be It Resolved portion of the resolution that passed now reads as follows:
SUPPORT MARRIAGE EQUALITY AND ACTIVELY ADVOCATE FOR ITS PASSAGE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Democratic Party of New Mexico, including its members and officers, should actively support and advocate on behalf of marriage equality and equal rights for all regardless of sexual orientation, because equal rights under the law are guaranteed under the US and NM Constitutions.
DPNM officers vote yes on resolutions package
While similar marriage equality resolutions have passed as far back as 2005, this one is stronger and also directs the Party's members and officers to advocate publicly on behalf of full marriage rights for all. Here's the original version of the resolution that was introduced by Mary Ellen and I and passed by the Democratic Party of Bernalillo this past March. (Read my earlier post on events at that meeting.)
DPNM Chair Brian Colon provided a powerful, emotional and personal explanation for his support of marriage equality during his speech to the SCC in response to being nominated for a second term as Chair by State Auditor Hector Balderas. I'll be uploading a video of Colon's remarks tomorrow so you can see for yourself why Mary Ellen and I and a whole lot of other Democrats are very proud of our Party leader and the political courage he has displayed on this issue.
I'm totally beat right now after a full day of Democratic events, but I'll have much more soon on what went on, including info on appearances by Sen. Tom Udall, Reps. Ben Ray Lujan and Harry Teague, State Auditor Hector Balderas, State Treasurer James Lewis and more. We'll also have lots of photos and videos.
In the meantime, do read Peter St. Cyr's post, which includes interviews with Brian Colon and yours truly. Also see Steve Terrell's blog about the day's events.
Photos by M.E. Broderick. Click on images for larger versions.
April 25, 2009 at 11:25 PM in Civil Liberties, Democratic Party, GLBT Rights | Permalink
Comments
Goosebump City.
I know it's been a long, hard slog for you guys, and this is just a mile marker on the road to a fully-recognized equality and legitimacy. But it's nice to see you get a tangible indicator of the progress that is resulting from your diligence.
Posted by: Ms. Ann Thrope | Apr 26, 2009 7:18:57 AM
I am surprised the support from the DPNM was overwhelmingly positive! This is good news.
Very dissapointed in our candidate for NM-02, Al Kissling, guess there is a reason why we voted for Bill McCamley!
According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, he said: "The state shouldn't push a religious rite."
As my partner and I said, if the Catholic Church and our DINO's thought Domestic Partnership rights would lead to Gay Marriage, that is the reason they voted no, then let's skip right ahead to Gay Marriage.
Posted by: Leo Cuevas | Apr 26, 2009 9:56:45 AM
Apparently Rev. Kissling, the Catholic Church, and other opponents of marriage equality have never heard of the concept of Civil Marriage. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a religious rite. Churches can do whatever they damn well please, except confuse their beliefs with civil law.
I was disappointed that I didn't get to speak in favor of gay marriage at the meeting. I had been rehearsing in my sleep all night!
Posted by: Proud Democrat | Apr 26, 2009 12:30:25 PM
Three cheers! I'm looking forward to the video.
Posted by: Ellen Wedum | Apr 26, 2009 11:15:04 PM
This is so very clearly a civil rights issue. The Democratic Party has fought hard for civil rights, and it was imperative that we stand for this.
I am proud to be a Democrat, and it is unfortunate that this is even an issue.
Posted by: bg | Apr 27, 2009 6:58:18 AM
As noted by Proud Dem in the comment above, there is a lot of confusion about what we're trying to do.
I think if you want the goal of civil marriage equality, it might be smart to refer to it as either marriage equality or civil marriage.
OTOH, headlines containing the word 'gay' are inevitable. Except wait, thanks to Daniel Ivey Soto, yesterday's Journal headlined marriage equality.
Language matters.
Posted by: PhoenixRising | Apr 27, 2009 7:24:30 AM
I'm not convinced that keeping the word "gay" out of the headlines and language of equality is a good thing. Everybody knows that's what it's all about and it can look like we're ashamed of the word and our own identities. Same with emphasizing that domestic partnerships include heterosexuals. They do but that's not really the point.
Isn't it time we stand up and say what we mean and do it proudly? I can't imagine anyone who is against GLBT equal rights being swayed because the word "gay" is avoided.
Remember when black pride and black power became the language in the civil rights movement? Say it loud, I'm black and I'm proud. I think it may be time for us to adopt a similar attitude instead of thinking some clever use of language will dazzle the bigots into accepting us.
Posted by: Lee | Apr 27, 2009 7:58:48 AM
Lee, speak for yourself about what you really mean, and I'll do the same. I don't want 'gay marriage', I want equal treatment from the state, in all matters, including access to marriage.
Of course those who are against gay people being treated equally to our neighbors are against both. Our language is not going to move those people.
The question is how to best sway the 35% of straight people who don't care either way? Maybe your suggestion to use the term 'gay' as often as possible is correct.
However, I'd ask you to contemplate the fact that pride or power claims from a racial minority has historically lagged civil equality by varying timelines..but it always follows. Why do you think that is? I'm not sure myself, but I know that it is.
Posted by: PhoenixRising | Apr 27, 2009 8:39:32 AM
I agree with Lee. There is so much shame already imposed on the gay community and hiding behind euphemisms is so obvious. Odd that Daniel Ivy Soto, a heterosexual man, should stand up and move to change the language. I haven't heard about him for a long time and he shows up to make that motion?
I don't really care what this is called in the end. The main challenge we face is reaching out to people face to face and telling our human stories about problems with everyday life. I think too much attention is paid to fine tuning the language and not enough to doing that and devising a strategy in the legislature that works.
The people who have designed the strategy and tactics for the last few years have not been successful in passing even domestic partnerships. Those working against us still call it gay marriage anyway so why not call a spade a spade? It's another level of coming out isn't it?
Posted by: SFean | Apr 27, 2009 9:09:56 AM
Colon was brave. The Dems were strongly behind it except for the closet gay Richard Martinez and his crew. Progress is being made very rapidly now across the country. It is only a matter of time.
Marriage means a license under civil law. What churches do to "sanctify" that is their own business. They need to stop lying to the public by claiming a marriage equality law would force them to perform wedding ceremonies in their houses of worship. It would not in ANY WAY do that and they know it. Isn't lying against the Ten Commandments?
Posted by: SCC Member | Apr 27, 2009 12:02:52 PM
I agree with Phoenix Rising that we should start talking about civil marriage equality. It is more clear. However, I think we should not shy away from talking about "gay marriage," just as we should not shy away from calling ourselves liberal. IMHO, we can't afford to let the right wingers define the labels we use to describe ourselves. You can call a spade a shovel, but some people will continue to think you're insulting black people.
Posted by: Proud Democrat | Apr 27, 2009 12:18:45 PM
When it comes to gay marriage, as a Democrat from Rio Arriba county who comes from Sen Richard Martinez's district, I am torn on which side to stand.
On one hand, I believe in civil rights and equality for all. I have friends who are homosexual and I believe in their individual rights.
My only issue is the logistics that marriage equality legislation would cause. Would the law force churches to conduct the marriages or will the marriages be held in the justice of the peace? Most marriages are held inside some kind of church. I don't believe the law should force churches to counteract the Bible and conduct the ceremonies on sacred ground.
Another issue is the private sector. Most businesses have employee benefits that extend to the spouse. My problem with domestic partnerships is it could cause fraud in the sense of two friends(box office film Chuck and Larry) would take advantage of the loophole to give benefits that are meant for real domestic partners.
Lastly when it comes to private individuals and businesses.... It is similar to the medical "conscience" rule where doctors may feel guilty about performing abortions. Obviously the mother has a right to get an abortion. But does a doctor have a right to refuse service based on his own version of moral grounds.
It is a very tricky situation.In a diverse United States and in a diverse new Mexico....many cultures have long-standing values that should be respected as well.
Posted by: Daniel | Apr 27, 2009 1:11:09 PM
Daniel: You're expressing some of the confusion that surrounds this issue. I know it can be hard to understand exactly what we're trying to achieve.
Civil marriage is just that. You purchase a marriage license and take your vows in front of a justice of the peace or other individual designated by the state. That civil part has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage that is provided in a church. Such civil marriages are legal whether or not the couple also has a sacramental wedding ceremony in a place of worship.
Religious authorities, as now, would be totally in charge of who can and can't receive the marriage sacrament in their church, synagogue or mosque. Even now, religious organizations enforce rules of who may or may not have a marriage sacrament in their place of worship or performed by a member of their clergy elsewhere. Religious freedoms in the constitution protect this. It is completely separate from civil marriage before civil authorities. Those who wed in a church still have to have the license from the state as that is the civil part that the government handles.
Many civil marriages already take place without a church ceremony and they are valid civil marriages. That is all we are asking for.
I suppose it is possible that two men or two women would enter into a civil marriage or domestic partnership just to get benefits, but I think it would be very rare. Do heterosexual couples ever marry just to get gain benefits or a green card? A few do, but again it's rare in the scheme of things, and there are rules that make it not that easy to do.
I don't believe any business would be allowed to deny benefits to same-sex couples that are married or in official domestic partnerships if those benefits are offered to heterosexual married couples. Businesses also can't do that with other married couples that might be interracial or whatever. Civil laws are meant to assure the provision of equal treatment under civil law.
I hope this clears up your questions. It is good to have a dialogue as I think there are many misunderstandings we can overcome by "talking" like this. I am hopeful that we can reach a better understanding since, as you say, we are all Democrats!
The main point is that all religions operate with strong protections under the constitution and changes in civil law that apply to civil marriage licenses and civil recognition by the state would have no effect on what goes on within churches or other places of worship. That's up to the religions themselves.
Posted by: barb | Apr 27, 2009 2:01:56 PM
"On one hand, I believe in civil rights and equality for all. I have friends who are homosexual and I believe in their individual rights."
This is why Soto's change of language is so brilliant.
Posted by: qofdisks | Apr 27, 2009 3:57:18 PM
Yeah, now nobody knows it's about gay marriage, right?
Posted by: Joe | Apr 27, 2009 5:56:48 PM
I would say "useful," but "brilliant" notsomuch.
Posted by: bg | Apr 27, 2009 6:19:24 PM
In our original resolution we used the phrase "gay marriage" on purpose. Because there is nothing wrong with being gay and because what we are seeking is civil marriage just like what everyone else has when they go get a license.
People who go to Las Vegas to get a quickie drive through license say they are going to "get married" despite no church service being involved. We want that same freedom. We want to be able to get a license from the county clerk and say our vows before a civil authority and then say we are "married" just like heterosexuals who do the same thing.
As for church services, that's all up to the churches, as I said above. The constitution protects their rulemaking on whom they'll provide with a wedding sacrament. No way will they ever be forced to provide the wedding sacrament to same-sex couples married under civil law. Period.
The term "marriage equality" has come into vogue and is now the politically correct phrase used by many in the "official" GLBT rights movement. I don't really care that much that it was changed but it was kind of a stealth move by certain parties that was done without informing us prior to Soto's motion.
It would have been nice to know it was being planned, since we drafted the resolution and got it passed at the county level and there was a caucus before the meeting with the active parties. No mention of any language substitution was made. I find that sad.
Posted by: barb | Apr 27, 2009 7:19:42 PM
wow...i just went to the online merriam webster dictionary and entered the word marriage to see what their definition is...very interesting here it is:
mar·riage
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union
Posted by: mary ellen | Apr 27, 2009 7:57:33 PM
So now we have the word marriage defined. And we all know what the word GAY means...happy of course. So what we have is a happy marriage...I say we call it that!
Happy Marriage - I want one!
Call it what you will. It is ALL about civil rights. And what these basic civil rights come up against is vehement hate.
I too was surprised when Ivy Soto came to the mic and offered the amendment. Was it a friendly amendment or was it not so friendly amendment coming from this straight man, I wonder, it is all in the eyes of the beholder.
There is no fooling anyone on this with clever phrases. I can only speak for myself but I am gay and I want legal protection with my committed partner. We are committed, in love, faithful, in sickness and in health til death do us part. That is what we are.
I call it love, love through ups and downs.
I am thrilled Daniel from Sen. Martinez district came to participate in this forum. You have thoughtful comments, and this is exactly how (IMO) progress can be made. You are the one on this thread that I would really like to talk more to!
Posted by: mary ellen | Apr 27, 2009 8:25:56 PM
What an awesome day! With Iowa granting Gay Marriage licenses and the DPNM standing up for equal rights ... and Merriam-Webster's Dictionary adding same sex marriage to their definition, can it get any better?
Of course, now we just need PROP 8 overturned and Big Bill calling for a special session and all 10 lawmakers changing their mind to support marriage equality!
Gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, it's all the same, who are we trying to kid? While I understand PhoenixRising's argument, do you really think wording will make a difference, the media is going to call it Gay Marriage.
If Domestic Partnerships = Gay Marriage and 10 DEMS voted against it because of that, I say call it for what it is, Marriage Equality, ummm... I mean Gay Marriage! :)
Posted by: Leo Cuevas | Apr 27, 2009 10:19:15 PM
