Movement to End Electoral College Gains Momentum

The Founding Fathers designed the Electoral College as a backstop to prevent an unfit individual from becoming President of the United States.  For the system to work, of course, electors had to put the good of the nation first and be willing to take political heat if they acted to prevent the election of an unfit demagogue.  Sadly, it 2016 the Electors failed to do their constitutional duty and the consequence was that we now have the most unfit and foul individual in the history of the nation occupying the White House and doing incalculable damage to America both at home and abroad.  Making matters worse, congressional Republicans utterly failed to restrain the misconduct of the executive branch.  The result is now that there is a growing movement among states to amend their own laws so that their electoral votes will go to the winner of the popular vote nationally and not simply whichever candidate wins in their state.  If the movement grows, the consequences for the GOP could be catastrophic since its candidates have failed to win the popular vote in two out of the last five presidential elections.  Needless to say, Republicans who increasingly cannot win on their policies and who want to rid the votes of those who do not support their extreme agenda do not support the concept of one person, one vote.  A piece in NPR looks at this urgent need - a true national emergency - to avoid future presidents who failed to win the popular vote.  Here are highlights: 

An attempt at an Electoral College workaround is gaining momentum in the Mountain West.

Democrats in Colorado and New Mexico are pushing ahead with legislation to pledge their 14 collective electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote — no matter who wins each state.

The plan only goes into effect if the law passes in states representing an electoral majority. That threshold is 270 votes, which is the same number needed to win the presidency.

Democrats have been stung by the fact that President Trump's victory marked the second time in five cycles that a Democrat lost the presidency while winning the popular vote. 2016 was the most egregious example, with Hillary Clinton winning 3 million more votes than Donald Trump, but losing the election. It was the largest margin ever for someone who won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College.

Proponents of the national popular vote measures have argued that it's not political, but Republicans, who have benefited in recent elections from the Electoral College system, disagree.

And while a majority of the country has expressed support for giving the presidency to the person who wins the most votes — 55 percent in the latest Pew Research Center poll — there are sharp partisan divides.

So far, 11 states — including New York, California and New Jersey — have joined the effort along with the District of Columbia, putting the effort 98 votes short of its goal.

Colorado appears poised to join as the 12th state. The state legislature passed the bill Thursday, and Gov. Jared Polis is expected to sign it. In New Mexico, the legislation is awaiting consideration in the state Senate after the House approved it earlier this month.

[A] potential loophole in the Constitution — that while the Electoral College is in the Constitution, nothing says a candidate who wins a state has to get all of its electoral votes. . . . . In fact, Maine and Nebraska do not have "winner-take-all" systems. They allocate their electoral votes to presidential candidates by congressional district, with an additional two electoral votes going to the winner of the state.

Colorado state Sen. Mike Foote, who's sponsoring legislation, insisted that it's not a partisan response to Trump's 2016 win. Rather, he said, it's about upholding the democratic principle of one person, one vote.

"It's about time that every vote in the country counts equally," he said. "Right now, if you live in a state that is not a battleground state, then your vote doesn't count nearly as much."

Republican state Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg, who represents the plains east of Denver, worries about the impact of a popular vote on rural America. He said it would lead candidates to only campaign in the largest media markets, like New York and Los Angeles. Only Democratic-leaning states have joined so far. Swing states, like Ohio and Florida, have the least reason to sign on, which means it likely needs support from deep red states.

There's also a broader question as to whether it would be constitutional. The Electoral College is clearly written into the nation's founding document. Some insist that Congress would have to approve it since it would overhaul national election procedures. Other scholars have argued that states can't bind their electors to voters outside their boundaries.

Koza insists Article II gives states broad power to decide how they choose electoral delegates. Still, he expects a series of lawsuits if enough of the National Popular Vote efforts went into effect.

"It's about saying the status quo is unacceptable," he said. "This might not be the best way of changing it, but it's at least a way of forcing some change and forcing some discussion of it."

As for weakening the influence of rural voters, I am all for it.  Rural areas are the principal base for the racism and religious extremism that the GOP seeks to inflict on the majority of Americans.  Their ability to do so needs to end.  

Prenatal Hormone Levels and Sexual Orientation - Another Blow to the "Ex-Gay" Myth

New Mexico has joined the small but growing number of states to ban ex-gay torture that has paraded under the disingenuous banner of "conversion therapy" and been a linchpin in the Christofascists' campaign to depict sexual orientation as a choice. I can personally attest after 37 years of trying to "pray away the gay" that it simply does not work and that anyone who claims otherwise is (i) a liar, (ii) possibly looking to line their pockets with money from the religiously brainwashed, and/or (iii) desperately trying to avoid admitting that their own religious tradition has fed them lies.  Science is increasingly exposing the lie of the "ex-gay" myth and even New Mexico's Republican governor (yes, it is shocking) seemly put science and truth ahead of the Christofascist agenda.  Joe Jervis reports in part as follows:

Gov. Susana Martinez has signed legislation that would ban the use on minors of conversion therapy that seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The measure was among dozens signed by the Republican governor as the Friday deadline approached for her to act on legislation passed during the session that ended March 18.

Six other states have banned ex-gay torture: California, Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont. Bans have also been adopted in dozens of local municipalities across the country, including in Cincinnati, Seattle, Miami, Pittsburgh, and Washington DC.

I can already hear the shrieks and howls coming from the usual suspects at "family values" organizations, including the mistress of hate, Victoria Cobb at The Family Foundation based in Richmond.  Science and medical knowledge moves onward even as the Christofascist seek to slink back in time.  A new study finds yet more evidence that prenatal hormone exposure plays a role in one's ultimate un-chosen sexual orientation.  Indeed, it suggests that common treatments to prevent miscarriage (such as what my own mother underwent) significantly increases the odds that a child will be same sex attracted later in life.  Here are some of the study findings:

Index cases were exposed to lutocyclin (bioidentical progesterone = C₂₁H₃₀O₂; M_W: 314.46) and no other hormonal preparation. Controls were matched on 14 physical, medical, and socioeconomic variables. A structured interview conducted by a psychologist and self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data on sexual orientation, self-identification, attraction to the same and other sex, and history of sexual behavior with each sex. Compared to the unexposed, fewer exposed males and females identified as heterosexual and more of them reported histories of same-sex sexual behavior, attraction to the same or both sexes, and scored higher on attraction to males.

. . . . regardless of sex, exposure appeared to be associated with higher rates of bisexuality. Prenatal progesterone may be an underappreciated epigenetic factor in human sexual and psychosexual development and, in light of the current prevalence of progesterone treatment during pregnancy for a variety of pregnancy complications, warrants further investigation. These data on the effects of prenatal exposure to exogenous progesterone also suggest a potential role for natural early perturbations in progesterone levels in the development of sexual orientation.

The February special with Katie Couric on the National Geographic Channel  that looked at the transgender Americans addressed the medical findings on what causes one to be transdgender.  The same, of course, applies to the rest of those under the LGBT umbrella.  Nature, not choice or nurture, is what is determinative.  Pretending otherwise only leads to pain, self-hate, and too often, suicide. On this issue, the Bible is simply flat out wrong. 

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Anti-Gay Photographer's Appeal

Anti-gay bigot, Elaine Huguenin

One of the lunatic wingnut justifications for Arizona's "turn away the gays" bill was that ultimately vetoed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was that "godly Christians" needed to be protected from serving those members of the public whose existence offended their religious sensibilities.  One of the instances cited for the need for the license to discriminate based on feigned claimed religious belief was the case involving Elane Photography which was found to have violated New Mexico's public accommodation statute.  The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld Elane Photography's conviction and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (Elane Photography was represented by the same whack jobs at the Alliance Defending Bigotry Freedom who are representing the Prince William County Clerk of Court in the Bostic v. Rainey case).  Today, the U.S. Supreme Court drop kicked Elane Photography and the Alliance Defending Freedom  by refusing to take the appeal from the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling.  The conclusion?  That the Arizona statute and Mississippi's new anti-gay statute were based on lies when they claimed that non-discrimination laws trample on the "religious freedom" of Christofascists.  The Washington Blade has details.  Here are excerpts:

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Monday it won’t take up a case in which a New Mexico photography business alleges its rights were violated when it landed in hot water for refusing to shoot a same-sex wedding ceremony.

In orders published Monday morning, the court listed the case, Elane Photography v. Willock, without comment as among the cases it won’t consider.

The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Elane Photography, which was found to have violated New Mexico’s anti-discrimination law for refusing to take a photo for the same-sex wedding ceremony for Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth in 2006. (The wedding was only ceremonial because the incident took place before the state legalized same-sex marriage.)

Elane Photography filed lawsuit in state court, alleging that its refusal to photograph a same-sex wedding is protected on religious grounds. However, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against the claims, saying the businesses service can be regulated because it’s a public accommodation. Following that decision, Elane Photography asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the lawsuit based on First Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution.

To grant a writ certiorari, or a take up a case, at least four of the nine justices on the court must agree to consider lawsuit. It’s unknown what the vote was on denying certiorari in this case.  Had the court taken up the case, justices could have found a constitutional right across the country for individuals to discriminate against LGBT people or refuse services for same-sex weddings ceremonies on the basis of religion.

Anti-gay groups had pointed to the incident as a reason to enact laws in various states to allow individuals and business to refuse services to gay people without fear of reprisal, such as the controversial “turn away the gay” bill recently vetoed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and signed into law by Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant. Other bills along those lines are pending in numerous states — Kansas, Mississippi and Georgia — but have seen resistance going forward.

Bigotry is bigotry whether wrapped in claimed religious belief or not and it is fortunate that the Court rejected this case  and sent a message to the Christofascists that they are NOT above the law. 

A Polite Homophobe Is Still a Homophobe

The debate over Ross Douthat's column that lamented the Christofascists' inevitable loss of the same sex marriage debate continues to ferment.  The Christofascists continue to whine and carry on that they are being persecuted and try to hide bigotry and animus under the cloak of "sincere religious belief."  As noted often on this blog, it's the same line that has been used in the past to support slavery and segregation in this country and to justify the murder of millions over the centuries around the world.  Hate, regardless of the motivation is still hate and homophobia is still homophobia even if the hater is polite and tries to play the victim.  A piece in Slate makes this case.  Here are excerpts:

On Wednesday, the Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf penned a lively response to my recent piece explaining Ross Douthat’s canny and dishonest defense of homophobia. In my original post, I casually noted that when a business owner denies gay people service because they’re gay, he qualifies as a bigot. Friedersdorf takes issue with this claim, which he believes “is itself prejudice rooted in ignorance.” I beg to differ.

At the heart of Friedersdorf’s article is an insistence that there are reasons other than homophobia that explain why a business owner might refuse service to gay people. But he doesn’t actually name any; instead, he justifies his assertion by pointing out that Elaine Huguenin, the now-infamous photographer who refused to shoot a lesbian wedding, is exceedingly polite over email. Friedersdorf excerpts an exchange between Huguenin and the would-be lesbian client, Vanessa Willock, highlighting how courteously Huguenin phrased her rejection of Willock’s request for service.

Here is how I understand this argument: Because Huguenin’s rejection of Willock (solely on the basis of her orientation) was worded very graciously—and perhaps because the wedding wasn’t a real wedding—Willock should not have sued.

Leaving aside Friedersdorf’s strange addendum about Willock’s pseudo-wedding, I see two problems with this logic. The first is that Friedersdorf seems to think that true bigotry always loudly announces itself as it enters the room, when in reality it thrives in the cracks between superficially civil conversation.

This kind of tactful bigotry—a sister of “polite racism” and a close cousin of pretext discrimination—arises from the same place as any kind of bigotry: hate, fear, ignorance, or whatever base emotions lead a person to believe that some humans are less worthy than others. By dressing up her homophobia in good manners, Huguenin might have softened the blow for Willock. But the ultimate effect of her actions is the same as if she had placed a sign on her shop door stating “No Gay Couples Served Here.”

[F]or Friedersdorf, believing that gays, lesbians, and their legal unions are “sinful” does not qualify as homophobia—even if this belief leads you to turn gay couples away from your business. I disagree. To believe that someone’s identity is inherently sinful is, to my mind, to be bigoted against them. If you believe black people are sinful and deserve fewer rights, you are racist. If you believe Jews are sinful and deserve fewer rights, you are anti-Semitic. I simply cannot see why those who believe that gays are sinful and deserve fewer rights should be held to a different standard.

I really do believe that when Huguenin refused to serve a gay couple because they are a gay couple, she was being homophobic. And I’ll even grant that maybe “hatred” isn’t the best word for Huguenin’s motivation; the legal term “animus” might be a better fit.

Protecting a vulnerable class of people against identity-based discrimination, as New Mexico does, is the state’s obvious prerogative, and whether Huguenin is disgusted by or scared of gay people is legally immaterial. Had Huguenin turned away an interracial couple, we wouldn’t be having this debate, because anti-discrimination protections for black people are by now settled law. But because discrimination against gays still feels somehow more acceptable to so many Americans, cases like New Mexico’s cause a national firestorm. I’m happy, as always, to engage in the debate. But I cannot accept that arguing for gay rights and criticizing the logic of those who oppose them qualifies, to use Friedersdorf’s term, as “prejudice.”

Very well said! A bigot is a bigot and a homophobe is a homophobe regardless of their politeness or claimed motivations.  It is far past time that deference cease to be given to religious based hate and animus.

New Mexico Supreme Court Affirms Same-Sex Marriage

In a unanimous ruling that will send Christofascists into spittle fleck convulsions, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld to rights of same sex couples to civil law marriage.  Indeed, the Court held that to bar gays from marriage would violate the equal protection guaranties of the New Mexico Constitution.  The Court also rejected the Christofascist argument that marriage should be reserved to those who can procreate, noting that no such bars apply to the elderly, the infertile or those who choose to not have children.  As noted in the previous post, love, commitment, companionship, and shared goals are the real substance of marriage, not legalized sex.  Here are highlights from the Albuquerque Journal:

The New Mexico Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of same-sex couples, granting them all the same rights of marriage enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

The court’s 31-page opinion states, in part, that: “All rights, protections, and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply equally to both same-gender and opposite-gender married couples.”

New Mexico joins 16 other states, the District of Columbia, and several Native American tribes in recognizing same-sex unions.

Justice Edward Chavez, who authored the unanimous opinion, rejected arguments made during an October hearing by opponents of same-sex marriage.

“Procreation has never been a condition of marriage under New Mexico law, as evidenced by the fact that the aged, the infertile, and those who choose not to have children are not precluded from marrying,” Chavez wrote in his opinion.

However, the ruling also stipulated that religious clergy who do not agree with same-sex marriage are not required to perform marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples.

The court ruled that county clerks must issue marriage licenses to couples regardless of gender, and that licenses issued to same-sex couples prior to the ruling must be recognized. More than 1,400 same-sex couples have been issued marriage licenses in New Mexico since August.

ACLU-New Mexico’s Legal Director Laura Schauer Ives said in a release, “As a state, we have always strived to treat all families with dignity and respect, and today’s decision allowing loving, committed same sex couples to marry continues that tradition. The more than 1000 same-sex couples who have already married in New Mexico can now rest certain knowing their marriages will be recognized and respected by our state.”

 The full opinion can be read here.

Republican Lawmakers Seek To Stop Gay Marriage In New Mexico

Always the dutiful political whores to the Christofascists who now make up perhaps the largest element of the Republican Party base, GOP legislators in New Mexico have filed a lawsuit to attempt to bar the same sex marriages currently taking place in sic of New Mexico's counties.  As noted previously, New Mexico does not have a constitutional amendment barring same sex marriages, the result of which has been county clerks issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor.  Talking Points Memo looks at the development which is yet one of the many faces of the hate and bigotry that now wears the name Christianity.  Here are highlights:

A group of Republican legislators has brought the first lawsuit to try to block gay marriage in New Mexico since six counties began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the past week.

The lawsuit targets one southern New Mexico county — Dona Ana — but could provide another route for the dispute to reach New Mexico’s highest court for a final statewide resolution. The New Mexico Association of Counties and county clerks statewide have said they plan a separate appeal to the state Supreme Court to try to get a decision on whether gay marriage is legal in New Mexico.

Paul Becht, an Albuquerque lawyer for the GOP legislators, said Friday the lawsuit was filed in Las Cruces, where the Dona Ana County clerk’s office has issued more than 200 marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples since last week.

Five other counties have taken similar steps, and Los Alamos County could become the seventh county to issue licenses.

A judge on Thursday ordered the clerk there to start granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples or to appear in court next week to explain why that shouldn’t happen. Los Alamos County Clerk Sharon Stover said the ruling is under review and no decision has been made on what will be done.

The lawsuit contends the Dona Ana County clerk exceeded his powers as a local official in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It’s up to the Legislature — not a county clerk — to change the law to provide for gay marriage, said Becht, a former state senator.

Dona Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins . . . .  a lawyer, concluded the state’s marriage laws are “gender neutral” and don’t prohibit the county from issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

A district judge in Albuquerque ruled earlier this week that it was unconstitutional to deny a marriage license to same-sex couples. However, the ruling doesn’t apply to all 33 counties in the state.

The Association of Counties and county clerks expect to file an appeal of the judge’s decision next week with the Supreme Court. There’s no guarantee the high court will take up their appeal, however.

Just as the U. S. Supreme Court found with DOMA, the only real basis for opposing gay marriage is anti-gay animus which doesn't pass constitutional muster to justify stigmatizing and discriminating against same sex couples.

All Of New Mexico's County Clerks Seek State Supreme Court Ruling for Gay Marriage

What began as a trickle with one county clerk issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples has become a raging torrent as all 33 of Mew Mexico's county clerks have voted to join in a petition seeking a ruling from the New Mexico Supreme Court confirming gay marriage.  With the announcement today by the IRS that it will recognize legally married same sex couples regardless of their state of residence and the Social Security Administrations signal to same sex couples to apply for benefits, the pressure on anti-gay states like Virginia which are becoming increasingly non-competitive in terms of attracting progressive businesses and entrepreneurs will be increasing markedly.  The Alburquerque Journal has details.  Here are highlights:

New Mexico’s 33 county clerks voted Wednesday to seek a state Supreme Court ruling on the legality of same-sex marriage, even as gay and lesbian couples continued flocking to county offices in all corners of the state.

The move came on another whirlwind day: Attorney General Gary King upholding the validity of marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in 2004 by a former Sandoval County clerk; and the state Supreme Court turning down a request by the lawyer for two Santa Fe men to consolidate and take over several pending gay marriage lawsuits.

County clerks in six counties — Bernalillo, Santa Fe, Doña Ana, San Miguel, Valencia and Taos — started issuing same-sex marriage licenses in the past two weeks, either voluntarily or in response to lower court orders.

However, legal uncertainty over whether other county clerks should follow suit and whether clerks can alter marriage application forms to make them gender neutral prompted the clerks to take action Wednesday.

New Mexico is the only state that has not explicitly allowed or disallowed same-sex marriage — via legislation, a popular vote or a high court ruling, according to legal experts. That statutory uncertainty has led to a range of legal interpretations.

During a Wednesday conference call, county clerks voted 31-0 to have their attorney seek a state Supreme Court ruling to address their concerns and determine whether the constitution’s equal-rights protection allows for same-sex marriage, said Daniel Ivey-Soto, executive director of the New Mexico County Clerks Affiliate.

Since the floodgates opened, county clerks in most, if not all, 33 New Mexico counties have been visited by same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses, Ivey-Soto said. He said it’s expected that lawsuits will be filed against county clerks who refuse to issue them.

“Instead of getting picked off one by one, the county clerks decided they need an answer,” Ivey-Soto said. “County clerks need to know what is their responsibility.”   All the state’s county clerks — 21 Democrats and 12 Republicans — offered to have their names listed in court briefs, he said.

Meanwhile, a letter Attorney General King emailed on Wednesday to current Sandoval County Clerk Eileen Garbagni said a license issued by a county clerk in New Mexico is “presumptively valid” unless a court of competent jurisdiction acts to invalidate it.

Baptist Press Batshitery on Public Accommodation laws

As growing public push back and court rulings are eroding the ability of Christofascists to impose their fear and hate based religious beliefs on society, the "godly folk" are having a complete conniption fit.  As is typical of these less than nice people, they view any restriction on the ability to trample of the constitutional rights of other citizens as an attack on "religious liberty."  In the Christofascist world view, it is they and they alone who are entitled to religious freedom.  Everyone else is supposed to knuckle under to them and forfeit their own rights.  A rant in the Baptist Press over the recent ruling against "Christian" photographers who refused to provide services to a same sex couple symbolizes this selfish and self-centered mindset.  Here are highlights:

ALBUQUERQUE (BP) -- An attack on religious liberty is evident in the New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling that two Christian photographers violated the state's Human Rights Act by refusing to photograph a same-sex "commitment ceremony," according to several Southern Baptist commentators.

"Anyone who still doubts that the normalization of homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage will represent a seismic shift in the culture at large needs only to look to New Mexico to see that nothing less than religious liberty is now under threat -- and in a big way," R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote in an online column Aug. 26.

Russell D. Moore, president of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said the Aug. 22 ruling "demonstrates, once again, that where we are headed is the state-established religion of sexual liberation, with the law used to steamroll every conscience in the way."

According to state Supreme Court Justice Richard Boson, the Constitution protects the rights of the Christian photographers to pray to the God of their choice and follow religious teachings, but he noted that belief and practice are not the same things. Religious liberty, Boson wrote, must be subordinated to the state's anti-discrimination laws, and that the photographers -- and by extension others -- are "compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives."

"The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of their sexual orientation -- photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony -- than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims," Bosson wrote. "The Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people."

"The New Mexico Supreme Court has now made clear that the price to be paid by many is the forfeiture of their religious liberty," Mohler wrote.
Kelly Boggs, director of public affairs for the Louisiana Baptist Convention and editor of the Baptist Message, wrote in his weekly column on Baptist Press Aug. 23 that the ruling is evidence that the push "to have homosexuality accepted as natural, normal and healthy in the United States knows no compromise. 

The "moment of truth is rapidly approaching" for Christians who believe homosexuality is "an immoral, aberrant behavior," he wrote.  "The choice will be whether to capitulate to a culture that asserts, without evidence, homosexuality is natural, normal and healthy, or to insist it is sinful and suffer consequences."

New Mexico: The New Gay Marriage Battleground As Judge Orders Issuance of Marriage Licenses

Unlike many states in America, the state of New Mexico never enacted explicit gay marriage bans through either statutes or an anti-gay amendment to the New Mexico Constitution.   As a result in the wake of the U. S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor - which among other things correctly identified anti-gay animus as the real motivation behind DOMA - several counties in New Mexico have started issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.  And as reported previously on this blog, the New Mexico attorney general has announced that he will not oppose the issuance of such licenses.  To further confuse the mix of legal directives, now a judge has ordered county clerks to proceed with the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples.  Here are highlights from BuzzFeed:

A New Mexico judge has ordered the county clerks of Bernalillo and Sante Fe counties to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples who apply and are otherwise qualified.

Because the clerk in Santa Fe County already began issuing licenses last week, as did the clerk of Dona Ana County, the addition of Bernalillo County into the mix makes a third county in the state where licenses will be issued to same-sex couples.

Issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus, Judge Alan Malott found Monday that the couples suing for a right to marry in one of the only states in the nation without either marriage equality or an explicit ban on such marriages have a “significant likelihood of success” on the merits of their lawsuit.   In reading his ruling in open court Monday, Malott said he ordered that:

New Mexico law, Malott found, “does not preclude nor prohibit issuance of a marriage license to otherwise qualified couples on the basis of sexual orientation or the gender of its members.”.

To the extent it is found to do so, “those prohibitions are unconstitutional and unenforceable under” New Mexico’s constitution, he ruled.

Bernalillo County Clerk Maggie Oliver and Santa Fe County Clerk Geraldine Salazar “shall comply with and perform” their duty to issue such licences.
Oliver and Salazar are “enjoined and restrained from refusing to issue” such licenses.

Malott is a district court judge in the Second Judicial District of New Mexico and was appointed to the bench by former Gov. Bill Richardson.

New Mexico Attorney General Gary King, meanwhile, has told that state’s Supreme Court in a third court challenge that any attempt to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying is unconstitutional.

It was not immediately clear who, if anyone, would appeal either last week’s or Monday’s court rulings. The question is relevant because neither ruling creates a final, definitive ruling about state law — a ruling that only could come from the state’s Supreme Court.

New Mexico Supreme Court: Photographer Cannot Deny Services to Gay Couples

In a unanimous - and completely common sense - opinion, the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that a photographer (and by extension, any business that offers services to the general public) cannot refuse to provide goods or services to same sex couples citing "religious belief."  If one is going to market to the public, then one has to provides goods and services to ALL of the public, gays included.  Not surprisingly, the Christofascists who see themselves above the laws governing others are apoplectic that they cannot discriminate at will against those they don't like and screaming that they are being persecuted.  In truth - as is increasingly the case, it is they who are the ones persecuting others.  Metro Weekly looks at the important ruling.  Here are highlights

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision Thursday that a wedding photographer who refused to provide services to a same-sex couple violated the state's Human Rights Act.

"[W]e conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of the [New Mexico Human Rights Act] and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples," the state's highest court ruled. "Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."

The ruling comes in the case of Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock, which was filed after Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, turned away Vanessa Willock and her partner in 2006 on the grounds that photographing the ceremony would violate her religious beliefs.
An investigation by the state Human Rights Commission that found the company was guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation was upheld by the New Mexico Court of Appeals in June of 2012.

In its decision today, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the state's Human Rights Act, which was amended in 2003 to add "sexual orientation" as a class of people protected from discrimination, does not violate free speech because it does not compel the photographer to either "speak a government-mandated message or to publish the speech of another."

"The purpose of the NMHRA is to ensure that businesses offering services to the general public do not discriminate against protected classes of people, and the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the First Amendment permits such regulation by states," the decision states. "Businesses that choose to be public accommodations must comply with the NMHRA, although such businesses retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious or political beliefs.

Illustrative of the bullshit coming from the Christofascist is the rant by Bryan Fischer of the hate group, American Family Association, who says the ruling is tantamount to the Jim Crow laws and that Christians are the "new blacks."  Right Wing Watch reports on Fischer's disingenuous screed:

Bryan Fischer is incensed at the New Mexico Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that a wedding photography business violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing its services to a same-sex couple. The American Family Association spokesman called on the business, and others, to file countersuits and “fight fire with fire” by alleging that preventing them from discriminating against customers is religious discrimination.

“Essentially what this court has done and what the Obama administration has done with this abortifacient mandate is that they have turned Christians into Dred Scott,” Fischer claimed, arguing that the New Mexico court “said that Christians have no rights which this court is bound to respect. So to me this looks like Jim Crow is alive and well, we’ve got Jim Crow laws right back in operation, Christians are the new blacks.”

Hate, bigotry, selfishness and, of course endless lies, are the hallmarks of conservative Christians.  Kudos to the New Mexico Supreme Court for making it clear that these vile people are not above the law.

New Mexico Atorney General Will Not Challenge Issuance of Gay Marriage Licenses

New Mexico has never enacted an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.  As a consequence, in view of the absence of a constitutional prohibition, the Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins decided to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples earlier today.  The bigger news, however, is that New Mexico Attorney General Gary King told reporters that he does not plan to challenge said marriage licenses, since he believes the bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.  Towleroad has details on the unfolding events in New Mexico.  Here are highlights:

After Doña Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins decided to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples earlier today, state Attorney General Gary King told reporters that he does not plan to challenge said marriage licenses, since he believes the state's current ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. In another bit of possibly good news, King also told press that he would not challenge any other county clerk should they make the same decision, although he did warn that the licenses could be ruled invalid if the state Supreme Court deems the decision unlawful.

King's decision comes after a prior legal challenge to New Mexico's ban on same-sex marriage, another one that he has chosen not to defend. According to the Associated Press, same-sex couples in Las Cruces have already started taking advantage of the decision. "I was in a coffee shop grading dissertations when my partner sent me an email saying, `you want to get married?'" said Char Ullman, 51. "I went home to brush my teeth and headed to the courthouse."



Meanwhile, the New Mexico Supreme Court has been asked to streamline and expedite all pending challenges to the state's mariage equality ban, partially thanks to Jen Roper and Angelique Neuman. Roper reportedly suffers from terminal brain cancer, and wishes to tie the knot with her partner before she passes. 

At present, New Mexico's Republican Governor Susana Martinez has yet to issue a comment on today's events.

From a legal perspective, I believe that Attorney General King is 100% on the money.  Hopefully, New Mexico wall join the list of pro-gay marriage states.  Meanwhile, we can expect the Christofscists to attack Mr. King.

Gratuitious Cruelty: Catholic School Forcing Male Transgender Student to Wear Female Robe at Graduation

At times I find it shocking as to just how mean and petty the Catholic Church is towards LGBT individuals.  It's not about religious belief.  It's simple deliberate cruelty and nastiness.  And there seems to be no limit as to how far Catholic officials will go to mistreat LGBT individuals.  How else to explain an Albuquerque, New Mexico Catholic school which is demanding that Damian Garcia, a trans student, wear a girl's gown to graduation.  Everyone accepts Damian as a male, including his parents, but not the asshole school principal who seems to be finding delight in this gratuitous cruelty.  Here are highlights from KRQE News 13:

A Saint Pius senior was born a girl, but refuses to go graduate in a girl's gown.  The Catholic school says too bad.  

At the Saint Pius High School graduation ceremony, the girls wear white gowns and the boys wear black.  It is school policy and Saint Pius insists Damian is a girl..

“I just want to walk in my black robe, nice and proud and have that memory to look back on with my family and friends,” said Damian Garcia. “I would rather not walk than to embarrass myself by wearing a female robe.”

Damian Garcia was born Brandi Garcia, but identifies as a male even having a legal name-change last year.  Fellow students, teachers and faculty call Garcia "Damian" and so does Damian’s family.  “I look at him and I call him my son. That's how he wishes to be acknowledged is as a male,” said father Luis Garcia.

Damian's father calls the school's decision heartbreaking.  “All you want in life is to see your kids happy and healthy. You never want to see them suffer or being ridiculed or be made fun of,” Luis said.

To me, it's yet another example of the "godly folk" not really giving a damn about others.  Something this simple and yet it is too much to ask from a heartless and morally bankrupt institution.  Fortunately, the school is garnering negative publicity world wide and a petiton has been started to underscore the unpopularity of the school's cruelty:

Over 11,000 people have signed the petition on MoveOn.org’s petition website to St. Pius High School Principal Barbara Rothweiler, asking that the school administration allow Damian Garcia to walk in a boy’s black cap and gown for St. Pius’ graduation on Wednesday, May 22nd.

SIGN THE PETITION HERE: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/let-damian-walk-for-graduati

The petition was started by Torrey Moorman’s two sons in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  Torrey and her two sons, Phynneaus (8) and William (14), heard about Damien Garcia's story on the local news and refused to go to bed that night until they could get involved, citing their Quaker values.  They started the petition, and have subsequently gotten in touch with the Garcia family and now the entire family is involved in the effort.

 I hope readers will sign the petition.  I did.  If you want to find true Christian conduct, don't look for it in the Catholic Church.