Email
SF right to challenge gay marriage law
THE EDITORIAL cartoon on the Easter Sunday edition (March 31) appeared to make fun of Santa Fe officials “reinterpreting” the state law regarding marriage. They claim the law does not prohibit same-sex marriage. The cartoon accused Santa Fe of becoming a fourth branch of state government, joining the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Well, in a way the cartoon is correct. The “fourth branch” of government, although not called that in civics class, actually does exist — it is the people. When an unjust law does exist — passed by the Legislature, enforced by the executive and upheld by lower courts — the most proven way to test that law in this country is for members of the public to challenge — disobey — that law. It is how state laws supporting school segregation were challenged and overthrown. It is how state laws prohibiting interracial marriage were challenged and overthrown. And it is how DOMA was brought to the Supreme Court for final judgement — a single person questioned DOMA’s “equal justice” aspect and challenged the law. So, let us not ridicule any private citizen or government official for challenging the legitimacy of any existing law. In fact, in America it is the most effective way to have a law tested. The New Mexico state law dealing with marriage appears to have more than one interpretation. What better way to get it properly clarified than to challenge it and see what happens. Santa Fe government officials are just practicing good government. Bravo! MATHEW FRAUWIRTH Santa Fe
Gay love just as valid as any other
AS IT SEEMS the Supreme Court might finally bring equality and recognition to the marriages of our gay and lesbian citizens, I think it is high time we all get used to the idea of these peoples’ love being just as legitimate as any others.
Besides the obvious presence of many in history who were something other than straight, which only proves that homosexuality is not a new thing , I would like to point out one of what I think is one of Sigmund Freud’s most interesting observations on human nature. In his investigation of human sexuality, he points to the bizarre habits of infants, whom he labels as “polymorphously perverse,” which, if you ever spent any time around a baby, you know to be absolutely correct.
Infants are on a mission to explore everything around them — and I think the results of their experimentation are manifested later. In subtle ways, we all remember those weird tidbits from our earliest youth and we continue to pursue similar things through our lives. Many of these things end up being manifested sexually.
Our identities are rooted in congenital traits and in our experiences. I think the diversity of these can only mandate that we are all, in our own particular ways, polymorphous perverts. We must recognize that, in light of this diversity, “gay,” “straight,” etc., fail to capture the reality of things. Sexuality is a spectrum – and where you fall on that spectrum should have no bearing on your rights. It is a shame that our culture has for so long refused to recognize this and that people have been ostracized, punished and even illed for exercising their most basic human freedoms.
It is time to confirm, once and for all, that right to enter into loving, consensual relationships and to seal them in the bonds of marriage shall not be infringed.
I wish all our LGBT friends the best at the Supreme Court and at the altar.
KENNY DELAPP
Albuquerque
Homosexuality is not ‘hard-wired’
SINCE THE LAW neither prohibits nor allows same-sex marriage, it should be noted the law was made when the only definition of marriage was a man and a woman as Jesus even taught in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9.
Remember that even the human genome study that mapped the human genetics stated that homosexuality is not “hard-wired.” It is not genetic and therefore a lifestyle that is a choice. You can rail at me all you want but that is the truth.
Also, it is considered immoral by all real Christians because God’s holy word states it in both the Old and New Testaments. No church, preacher or even business should be forced to support this immoral lifestyle.
Also I believe that it should be the people who decide whether or not they want immoral lifestyles to be supported by the state. Not judges, the Legislature or even a mayor or governor. This acceptance of immoral lifestyles should never be forced onto anyone. Everything a married couple can do, a non-married couple can do, except a joint tax filing. So why the forcing of this issue? It is to force you to accept this lifestyle as normal.
RALPH ZECCO
Socorro
Minister supports same-sex marriage
AS A MINISTER in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for over 40 years, I experienced the harm that came from forcing gay and lesbian clergy to stay in the closet. Only within the past couple of years has the church allowed gay/lesbian clergy to serve as ministers if they can “attest to a life-long commitment to their partner.” It’s hard to imagine heterosexual clergy being asked to make the same statement of commitment.
It took hundreds of years for the “progressive” ELCA to come to this position – quite short of marriage equality. It won’t be long before they, too, will recognize marriage equality.
Major advances in human rights took years to come to fruition. But when the historic moment was right, when public consensus joined political visionary courage, human rights were granted legally: the right to vote for women, the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Acts, the American with Disabilities Act, to mention only a few.
That historic moment has come for marriage equality. A majority of the American public supports giving same-sex couples the freedom to marry. A majority of New Mexicans support this right as well. I am glad to count myself among that majority.
WILLIAM E. HERSHEY
Albuquerque
Courts must rule on gay marriage
I READ WITH great interest Winthrop Quigley’s UpFront column in these pagestitle”GaRights Ruling Could Impede Political Solution” (March 19). While the author supports marriage for same-sex couples and has a gay son himself, I believe he misses the mark when he says the courts are not the place to fight for the freedom to marry.
It would be wonderful if tomorrow legislatures across the country woke up, went to work and repealed all the laws that keep same-sex couples from marrying. But we know that is unlikely to happen. This is precisely the reason we have courts, to keep the majority from holding captive the rights of a minority.
Lest we not forget, until the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws against interracial marriage in 1967, several states would have prevented me from marrying my wife not only because we are both women, but also because I am black and she is white. Even in 1986, only a few years after we began our relationship, two thirds of the public still opposed interracial marriage. Our country’s history overflows with examples where the courts needed to set the pace for instructive change on how we treat one another.
Today, as I write this letter, my spouse and I are celebrating our 30th anniversary together. We are similar to many couples. We’ve had good times and not-so-good times, and we’ve been there for each other through sickness and through health. We share a loving, supportive and committed relationship. We married in California during the brief period when it was legal, and we want our relationship to be recognized and respected here in New Mexico, the place we call home.
If my wife and I had met before 1967, should we have waited for a political fix to anti-miscegenation laws? How long should my wife and I now wait for politicians to decide our love is worthy of inclusion? The majority of Americans already support marriage for same-sex couples. If the courts affirm our freedom to marry, they will be catching up to the will of the American people, not leaving them behind.
JANICE BRUCE GRIFFIN-HIGHTOWER
San Jose, N.M.
Journal one-sided on gay marriage
I’D LIKE TO commend the Journal on its one-sided coverage of the gay marriage controversy. Like all important issues of the day, it is so important that we only hear the liberal view of things lest our opinions be poisoned by conservative, family, moral or religious values.
What I don’t understand is why the Journal even has a Sunday religious page. Ad-driven hypocrisy is so unbecoming of you.
CLYDE J. ARAGON
Albuquerque
Marriage should be a right for couples
I AM DELIGHTED the New Mexico state constitution does not define marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Our state has a history of support for individual freedom and now we have a great opportunity to re-frame our state’s view of marriage as a fundamental right, an individual freedom for all committed couples, including same-sex couples.
My partner and I are lucky to have been in love and married for 35 years. That kind of luck should not arbitrarily be withheld from anyone. Marriage is about love and respect but also about bringing two people into a relationship in which they are legally responsible for each other. What married person would not feel pain if she were, for example, not allowed to care for an ill or dying spouse or were excluded from sharing health-care benefits provided to other couples who work for the same employer?
For the love it engenders, for the privileges and responsibilities it confers, I believe marriage for all who want the commitment is essential to the health and welfare of our community.
SALLY SCHWARTZ
Albuquerque
Bishops are not a political action group
N.M.’S CATHOLIC bishops do not seem to understand the distinction between civil marriage and the sacrament of marriage within their branch of Christianity.
I respect their right to preach whatever they like to members of their denomination regarding their church’s teachings. But they do not have the right to tell people with other beliefs what they should think or do in the civil sphere.
The question on the table today has to do solely with the civil right to be treated equally under the law. If the bishops wish to weigh in on that question of civil law, they are acting as a political action group. In that case they should either stop making public pronouncements on the issue or forego their tax exemption as a religious organization.
LINDA LOPEZ MCALISTER
Albuquerque
