51% Favor Marriage; 53% Back Favorable Court Resolution
ALBUQUERQUE, NM—As the state’s highest court prepares to hear arguments on Oct. 23rd on whether or not New Mexico law allows same-sex couples to marry, a new statewide poll finds strong majority support both for the freedom to marry and a favorable court ruling.  
The new poll of 500 voters was commissioned by Why Marriage Matters New Mexico, a public education campaign by the ACLU of New Mexico, the national ACLU, Equality New Mexico (EQNM), Freedom to Marry, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The poll shows majority voter support for marriage overall (51%-42%) and an even larger number saying the state Supreme Court should rule in favor of marriage (53%-40%).
The poll, conducted Sept. 18-22 by Anzalone Liszt Grove, also finds that important segments of the state support the freedom to marry once they learn that gay and lesbian couples can marry in some New Mexico counties but not others. For example, a majority of Independents (59%), older Hispanics (53%), Anglo men (54%), Catholics (54%) and Hispanics who attend church weekly (53%) support a favorable court ruling. (Poll base lines below)
"This poll confirms what we already knew: New Mexicans are ready to extend the freedom to marry to loving, committed same-sex couples," said Amber Royster, executive director of EQNM. “Equally important, it shows that most New Mexicans don’t believe marriage equality will have much, if any, impact on their own lives.”
"It’s clear that if the New Mexico Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s ruling, the majority of people would embrace that decision,” said Peter Simonson, the executive director of ACLU-NM. “Voters don’t want a constitutional amendment on the ballot.  They want all New Mexicans to be able to marry the person they love.”
The New Mexico Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing on Oct. 23in response to a request by the state Association of Counties that the Court decide whether or not state law permits same-sex couples to marry.  All 33 county clerks joined in the Association’s request that the Court resolve the issue.
The action by the clerks was filed in response to a case brought by six same-sex couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico (ACLU-NM), the national ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), and local attorneys.  A Sept. 3^rd ruling in the Second Judicial District Court in Albuquerque issued a declaratory judgment against all 33 county clerks, ruling that the New Mexico Constitution requires that marriage licenses be issued to otherwise qualified same-sex couples.  The Association seeks a speedy high court decision to resolve the matter.
 Poll Baselines 

###

 

ALBUQUERQUE, NM--Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico, the national ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR),  the law firm of Sutin, Thayer & Browne APC, and other New Mexico attorneys are filing  a brief with the New Mexico State Supreme Court on behalf of six couples seeking the freedom to marry for all same-sex couples in New Mexico. The brief argues that under the New Mexico Constitution, loving, committed same-sex couples should be able to marry and that New Mexico should respect the marriages of those who have already married.
"Every New Mexico court that has considered our claims has agreed that it is unconstitutional to deny marriage to loving, committed same-sex couples," said ACLU-NM Legal Director Laura Schauer Ives. "We are hopeful that the New Mexico Supreme Court will agree that same-sex couples in our communities deserve full respect and recognition of their relationships, and issue a writ to resolve all claims on constitutional grounds."
The couples filed their freedom to marry lawsuit in March. In late August, Judge Alan Malott of the Second Judicial District Court in Albuquerque ordered the county clerks of Bernalillo and Santa Fe counties to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  All 33 New Mexico County Clerks then intervened in the lawsuit and filed a petition asking the New Mexico Supreme Court to provide a state-wide, binding resolution on the question of whether same-sex couples can marry. The Supreme Court ordered the six couples to file a brief in response to the petition and set oral argument for October 23.
"We agree with the 33 county clerks who say New Mexico families need certainty," said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. "New Mexico lacks a state-wide, binding resolution on the question of whether same-sex couples can marry. The more than 1,000 same-sex couples who have legally married in New Mexico over the past several weeks need to know that their marriages are valid and respected."
“In recent years we have seen an astounding wave of support for the freedom to marry nationwide,” said Elizabeth Gill, staff attorney with  the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “It is time for New Mexico to join the growing list of states that recognize marriage equality for all loving and committed couples.”
Several other parties filed amicus briefs in support of the freedom to marry today, including UNM Law Professors George Bach and Max Minzner, the American Psychological Association. A brief authored by Mary Bonauto, one of the nation’s leading civil rights attorneys, was also filed on behalf of Equality New Mexico and other supportive organizations. Bonauto argued the first successful challenge against a state ban on marriage for same-sex couples, which laid the groundwork for the eventual overturn of the federal Defense of Marriage Act this summer.

###

By Caroline Iosso, RCBR Project Coordinator
 

"Well, I pepper spray them in the face, of course, drag them to the ground, kick them, and handcuff them” The U.S. Border Patrol agent laughed and waited a beat before giving a more vague, but less horrifying answer to my question regarding what an apprehension at the border looks like.

His answers to my other questions began the same way—a sarcastic remark before, or instead of, a serious response.  I asked him if, in his opinion, as a veteran agent, there was truly a need for more Border Patrol agents at the U.S.-Mexico border. 

“Do the Yankees want more hitters?” he said.  Again, he laughed, as though my question were preposterous.

I asked my last question, sure that I would elicit something genuine: “Why did you become a Border Patrol agent?” “Because I wanted to hold a gun,” he asserted.
I was talking with a member of the Border Patrol’s Public Affairs Office in front of a stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border wall near El Paso, Texas.  The 18 members of my group had formed a semi-circle around him and his fellow agent who had come to speak to the Border Servant Corps, an organization I had recently joined.   We were there as part of our orientation to the region.

I’d visited the border wall previously, over a year ago, in Arizona.  Like the last time, the barrier struck me first as bizarre—a towering construction blocking one arbitrary piece of land from another.

This time, the wall seemed all the more strange when a young boy and his little sister on the Mexican side began a conversation with some of the members of my group before our speakers arrived. When the Border Patrol’s green striped van pulled up and our meeting began, the children in a separate country, kept from us by a big ugly fence, made for an eerie backdrop.

I have strong feelings and beliefs with regard to the work of the Border Patrol, but I was thoroughly shocked by the casual and offensive nature of the Public Affairs agent’s remarks.  I had wanted a genuine conversation, but I understand better now that the conversation of my dreams is never going to be a reality.

Encapsulated in this agent’s flippant answers is effectively the Border Patrol’s institutional attitude of disregard.  I want to bring to the table topics like human and civil rights, appropriate government spending, and, in my most hopeful fantasies, the ideologies behind the existence and maintenance of borders. But the Border Patrol—and the political apparatus of which it is part--won’t have that kind of discussion.

As much as I’d like to believe that the agent as one bad apple (like the singular bad apples that abuse migrants in detention centers, and shoot at boys throwing rocks), he’s a spokesperson for the cruelty and ignorance of a large and powerful federal agency.  He didn’t have one thoughtful or gentle comment to make about these undeniably complex emotional realities of the border.

I heard this same self-exculpating, emotionless script from his fellow agent—the regurgitated reminder of their role as “law enforcers, not law makers!”—and the delicate racist notes in her story of growing up in El Paso, and having her bike stolen repeatedly by Mexicans looking to make a profit in their home country.  These are not comments made by representatives of an agency that has a stake in family reunification or a long-term memory that might give historical perspective to immigration issues.

Almost a month after this encounter, I think about the male agent’s words almost every day—when I’m giving Know Your Rights presentations to groups in Las Cruces, New Mexico; when I’m talking with my housemate who works in a domestic violence shelter; when I’m listening to community groups rallying support around immigration reform. I remind myself that the agent is the part of the system we are working against—a laughing, uniformed, one whose arrogance is wreaking havoc.

This article first appeared September 18 in the Northern American Congress on Latin America "Border Wars" Blog.