« Tell the NM Senate to Vote For Compassion on Medical Marijuana | Main | Iraq Quote of the Day: 363 Tons of Cash Goes Missing »

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

NM Dem Senate Caucus Leader Introduces Another DOMA

RainaldiTwo so-called Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA) have already been stopped in the NM Legislature this year on the House side. Now we have to contend with another version on the Senate side, introduced by Sen. Lideo Rainaldi (D-Gallup), pictured right, who calls himself a Democrat. In fact, he holds the leadership position of Majority Caucus Chair. I find it especially galling that a Democratic leader would introduce such an unfair, anti-democratic bill. How about you? Here's what Equality NM had to say:

From Equality NM: DOMA NUMBER THREE
On Friday, Senator Lidio Rainaldi (D-Gallup-4), pictured left, introduced the third DOMA of the Legislative Session, Senate Bill 816. This legislation mirrors the previously introduced House Bill 395 and seeks to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman and deny recognition of valid marriages performed between same-sex couples in other jurisdictions.

The Senate DOMA will be much harder to kill. The Bill must go through Senate Judiciary, which is the Committee on which Senator Rainaldi currently sits. We are once again facing a vicious and hate filled public hearing on the Senate Floor. EQNM will continue to provide updates as this legislation is scheduled for public hearing.

The Attacks Continue! Help Us Stop Them By Donating Now To Equality New Mexico's Lobbying Efforts! Also, EQNM has a new Legistration Tracker that makes it much easier to follow bills of interest to the civil liberties and GLBT community and everyone who cares about equality under the law for all Americans. (End of EQNM alert.)

Note that our Democratic Senate Leadership assigned Rainaldi's DOMA bill to only two committees, unlike Sen. Ortiz y Pino's NM impeachment bill, for instance, that was assigned to be heard in three committee, which generally means the bill will have a hard time. What are NM Senate Democrats like Michael Sanchez, who has much to say about committee assignments, thinking?

Sadly, Sen. Rainaldi has consistently supported discriminatory legislation that would prevent all of our citizens from being treated equally under civil law and has voted with conservative Republicans against bills that would help minorities achieve equality here. See this post from the 2005 legislative session.

As most thoughtful people realize, religious beliefs are one thing, and are protected by our Constitution. Expecting civil laws to enforce particular religious beliefs, however, is misguided at best and mean-spirited and unconstitutional at worst. Let's hope that potential Democratic supporters of Rainaldi's bill can be respectfully persuaded with logic and real-life stories to see the difference.

And with Gov. Richardson running for president, let's hope he steps up and clearly denounces legislation like Rainaldi's aimed solely at stirring the pot and making headlines for the sponsors in areas where GLBT rights are often misunderstood or outright mocked.

February 6, 2007 at 05:41 PM in Civil Liberties, GLBT Rights, NM Legislature 2007 | Permalink

Comments

This Rainaldi is bad news. Even worse is that Democrats would choose him to head their caucus. We need to get rid of these old crony politicians and elect some new blood who can deal with the 21st century and its challenges. Sounds like Rainaldi is stuck in the 1950s with his bigotry and aim to make everyone live by the religious beliefs he likes. I guess he's for minority rights for himself but not others. This gives us a bad name and we look backwards. The Catholic Church doesn't help as it encourages people to blur church and state.

Maybe Rainaldi should focus more on getting his people educated and with health care and hope than in trying to make sure gay people don't have civil rights.

Posted by: P. Chavez | Feb 7, 2007 8:58:03 AM

Marriage has noting to do with the Constitution or homosexuals and everything to do with the survival of our species.

It is an institution that has been present in almost every culture that has ever existed and has been defined as the union of a male and female of our species. It has to do with the concept of family and children.


Homosexuals should have the right to civil unions, as should any two people. Marriage is a heterosexual institution that homosexuals have no rights to. It is stuff like this that makes me think we are only passing through a season of tolerance relating to homosexuals and that season will eventually come to an end. That is a fact.

If I was a homosexual I wouldn’t waste my time and energy F’ing with the culture when I was so outnumbered. If New Mexico had a proposition system like California and the vote was left up to the people there would be no gay marriage ever.

Posted by: Chi | Feb 7, 2007 10:18:46 AM

Damn, I wasn't expecting to have to argue this point. I just wanted to ask a question, but Chi, you served up a nice one here, so here's a straight response.

Its the role of our government to promote the health, welfare happiness and fulfillment of all citizens. What I've come to believe is that denying same sex couples any of the rights afforded to straight couples married under the law, such as health care, tax breaks, recognition of death benefits, etc... is that it furtheres a policy that contrary to the interest of our government because it denies people happiness and security.

Now, if I understand you correctly Chi, your saying that gay people aren't entitled to the recognition of their love and partnerships because, you claim, there more people opposed to it than there are supporting it?

Chi, this nation is founded on defending the rights of the minority from the tryanny of the majority.

Lastly, speration of church and state wasn't established only to ensure the freedom of religion and from religion, but also to insulate the state from the corruption of the church and the church from the corruption of the state.

Marriage, as you see it, is an institution of the church, not the state. And considering that what you're esposing is less about love than it is about a judgement, I see your position as a greater threat to the integrity of the institution of marriage than I see ending discriminatory policies agains same sex couples.

Anyway, what I had wanted to ask was if the Democratic Party had passed a resolution or made it part of the platform that same sex partners should be afforded the same rights as married straight couples?

Posted by: | Feb 7, 2007 11:18:48 AM

Chi exhibits his ignorance of the constitution, the law and what marriage actually is in legal terms. Civil marriage is about filing papers with the state and getting a state issued license that allows two people to sign a contract with each other that spells out certain legal rights backed by the state. It has nothing to do with religion, procreation or the church. In fact, many people are civilly married who cannot procreate or who don't plan to have kids. Moreover, many people are married before justices of the peace without any involvement of any church or religion.

What happens in a church is another thing entirely. It is a sacrament of that particular church, but doesn't constitute a legal, civil marriage because the people making the vows still have to sign a contract and get licensed by the state. Just having a wedding in a church is not a legal marriage.

Besides providing the rights to health, welfare, happiness and fulfillment, as Gideon notes, civil marriage would allow our GLBT citizens access to all the legal benefits afforded straight married couples. Things like survivor Social Security benefits, health insurance and retirement benefits, tax benefits and many, many more. Here's a list of them provided by the U.S. General Accounting Office:

https://tinyurl.com/3e42nq

Why should these legal benefits be available to only some of our citizens when the constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law? GLBT citizens pay all the same taxes and have all the same responsibilities that other citizens have. They deserve all the same rights.

People like Chi obviously think everyone should have to obey the religious beliefs of Chi and his friends. Maybe they should move to a nation governed by relgious fundamentalism as the source of all law. Here in America, there is a strict separation between church and state.

Posted by: GLBT citizen | Feb 7, 2007 11:50:31 AM

Answering Gideon's question about how the NM Democratic Party platform treats GLBT rights in this area, here's a post from 2006 that explains how the "official" platform was watered down from much stronger language approved during the resolutions process:

DFNM post

It's clear there is strong support for equal civil rights for all within the Party membership, but our "leader" have problems speaking the truth about discrimination and representing the views of the members.

Posted by: barb | Feb 7, 2007 12:13:42 PM

Here is a simple question for Chi and more importantly Rep Rainaldi: Will gay people be any less gay if they are not allowed to marry???

Posted by: VP | Feb 8, 2007 7:35:38 AM

Post a comment