Read More |
Here is the information you have been asking for - what legislators to target.
Rep. Kathy McCoy Dist. 22 katrina@swcp.com
Rep. Justine Fox-Young Dist 30 foxyoung@g.mail.com Rep. Eric Youngberg Dist. 23 eric.youngberg@nmlegis.gov
McCoy Represents part of the east mountain area. We need to have constitutents from these districts contact the Reps.
.
HB 9 is on a FAST TRACK and may be heard on the House Floor as early as Tuesday (1/22/08) or Wednesday (1/23/08) of this week. HB 9 was passed in the House Judiciary Committee on January 21, 2008 on a vote of 9 (8 Democrats & 1 Republican) to 4 (4 Republicans). Rep. Tom Anderson, a committed Christian, said that he received over 1000 emails on HB 9, most all of which were FOR HB 9 and a stack of phone messages about 3" - 4" high, most of which were Against HB 9. Equality NM (www.eqnm.org) is heavily funded (likely from an out of state source) to rally HB9 supporters for emails, phone calls, and committee hearings.
.
There is no way to even slow down HB9 in the House. We need to focus our efforts on the Senate. Specifically, Sen. Ulibarri, Sen. Cisneros, and Sen. Campos. We need to get one or all of these to oppose HB9. Sen. Ulibarri is on Senate Public Affairs. If we can get him to oppose HB9 we can stop it in committee. If we can’t get his help, the Senate Judicary committee is the next stop. We must have all the Republicans present and Sen. Rainaldi, D-Gallup. If all the Republicans and Sen. Rainaldi are present in committee we can stop it. We must encourage all the R’s to actually be there. If that fails we still can stop it in the full Senate. But if it gets that far we must have both Cisneros and Campos. We need to get hundreds of calls and letters out NOW to Senators Ulibarri, Campos, and Cisneros.
.
.
.
.
SENATE PUBLIC AFFAIRS
.
SENATE JUDICIARY
Update 1-28-2008HB-9 did pass the House on 1/24/08, but only by 33-31, which is a smaller margin than in the past. Thank you for your prayers, calls and emails because they made a difference in how some representatives voted on HB-9. But let us not lose heart in doing good, Gal. 6:9, as we need to continue to pray for our legislators, focusing on our senators, and make calls and send emails to our senators to request that they vote NO on HB 9 DOMESTIC PARTNER RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES. (See Find your Legislator http://legis.state.nm.us/LCS/legislatorsearch.asp for your senator's contact information.)
Remember a constituent request of his or her Representative or Senator is worth more than the requests of hundreds of lobbyists and non-constituents. The proponents have several lobbyists and many people working for the passage of HB 9 DOMESTIC PARTNER RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES. Rep. Tom Anderson (R), Bernalillo County, received over 1,000 emails in favor of HB 9. Rep. Shirley Taylor (R), Lea County, received about 300 emails in favor of HB 9 in one day. Senator Mark Boitano (R), Bernalillo County, started receiving emails in favor of a domestic partnership bill about five months ago. We need to pray for our senators and our senators need to hear from us now and probably several times. The Governor is supporting HB 9 because he put domestic partnerships on the call for this 30 day session for 2008. The Governor also supported HB 603 (a domestic partnership bill) in the 2007 regular legislative session and again put domestic partnerships on the call for 2007 special session. In 2007 Senator David Ulibarri (D), who was appointed by the Governor, voted against HB 603 along with the four Republican Senators Steve Komadina, Stuart Ingle, Gay G. Kernan and Steve Neville and the bill was tabled 5-4. However, Senator David Ulibarri (D) received alot of pressure to change his vote and then moved to reconsider HB 603. A few days later, he voted in favor of HB 603 and it passed 5-4. I have been told that after the session, some of his constituents have expressed to him their disappointment for his voting for HB 603. We need to pray for him and call / email him to request that he vote NO on HB 9 DOMESTIC PARTNER RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES. Senator Howie C. Morales (D) is new to SPAC as he was recently appointed by the Governor to fill the vacancy created by the death of Senator Ben D. Altamirano.
Each of the senators on SPAC and SJC also need to hear from us now requesting that they vote NO on HB 9 DOMESTIC PARTNER RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES. HB 9 Senate Review 1-1-2008HB 9 was postponed until Monday, Feb. 4. It was postponed probably because the proponents of HB 9 did not have the votes (and that a pro-Domestic Partnership rally is planned for Monday, February 4, 2008 at the State Capitol). Brad Miller, Director of the Family Policy Councils for Focus on the Family, was able to testify about the benefits of marriage and the consequences of redefining marriage before SJC since he could not stay until Monday. We are grateful that Brad was able to join us in the Lord's battle. We need to continue to call to urge them to vote “no” on this bill. We also need to thank the Republicans who have voted “no” and also Sen. Rainaldi for all his work on this bill. Please pray for and call / email your Senators to request that they vote NO on HB 9 DOMESTIC PARTNER RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HB 9 Update 2-5-2008Dear CLC Member, HB 9 was again postponed as the SJC meeting was canceled. However, there was a somewhat intense discussion on the Senate floor in afternoon session on 2/6/08 when the chairman of SJC was asked when the SJC would meet again. The chairman said that SJC might meet on any of the next 8 days until this session ends but he did not commit to when the next SJC meeting would be and said that his commitment to giving 24 hour notice of a SJC meeting was only through 2/6/08. An announcement of a committee meeting has to be made during an open session of the Senate by the chairman (unless the committee meeting is at the regularly scheduled time). SJC meetings are on Monday, Wednesday & Friday - 2:00 p.m. [or 1/2 hour after the Senate floor session ends per the Senate Schedule of Committee Hearings ] in Room 321. SJC is not scheduled to meet according to the Senate Schedule of Committee Hearings for Thursday, February 7, 2008. During the Senate floor session the evening of February 6, 2008, the chairman of SJC did not announce a SJC meeting for Thursday, February 7, 2008. However, there is a Senate floor session tomorrow on Thursday, February 7, 2008 starting at 10:30 a.m. during which the chairman of SJC could announce a SJC meeting for Thursday, February 7, 2008. Please pray that SJC would follow its regularly scheduled times for meetings and if a SJC meeting is scheduled at another time, then all 4 Republican Senators and Senator Rinaldi would be there. We need to be alert and in prayer as the proponents of HB 9 are looking for an opportunity (when a Republican Senator or Senator Rinaldi is not at a SJC meeting) to get HB 9 out of SJC and to Senate floor or attempt to "blast" HB 9 during a Senate floor session out of SJC. To vote against blasting HB 9 of SJC provides cover for some senators because it is not a vote against HB 9 and they can give a reason as to why they voted against blasting it out of SJC, such as there are too many other bills to hear, it would take too much time to hear taking away from other bills and/or it is too divisive and could cause division and defeat of other bills.
The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart in order that the Egyptians would know that He is the Lord. The Lord uses all things to bring glory to Himself.
Brad Miller TestimonyOne of the men who was able to attend the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on HB9 on February 1st was Brad Miller from Focus on the Family. We would like to post this transcript of his testimony before that committee. Here is Mr. Miller's response to why we are opposed to domestic partnerships: Proponents of this bill want to convince you that fairness and justice require this state to have domestic partnerships and traditional marriage. But the truth is, the one completely undermines the other, and future generations of this state’s citizens will be the losers. Marriage exists because the sexual union of a man and a woman results in children. For centuries, community leaders like you in a diversity of cultures considered it a good thing if the man and woman who made the baby, also worked together to raise the baby. Marriage is a social institution that provides a vital service to New Mexico and this country. Marriage was not created by government, but it is traditionally recognized by government because it provides something that the government desperately needs and cannot produce for itself—upstanding citizens who will contribute to the strength of this state and this country. Rather than acknowledge the social good that marriage is, this bill undermines it. It is unclear that H.B. 9 will reinforce or strengthen heterosexual relationships, but what is clear is that married mothers and fathers are key to the needs of children, and to the future of this country. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that H.B. 9 will satisfy homosexuals seeking legal recognition for their relationships. In fact, we have every reason to believe that it will not be enough. Activists in New Jersey and Vermont have declared those states’ civil unions to be insufficient and gay marriage is being pursued. H.B. 9 may seem like a minor tweak to state policy in the interest of equality, but it is ultimately a radical redefinition of vital family policy. And while the bill says that the domestic partnership shall not be construed as marriage, please tell me what is created when every right of marriage is given under a different name.
So what H.B. 9 really proposes is one step toward the redefinition of marriage in this state, and its proponents want marriage to do something for which it was not intended. Marriage is not a legal vehicle for equality; it’s a social institution with children at its heart. Proponents are pretending that this bill is about something else, but the ramifications of H.B. 9’s passage—especially for children--are unknown. Having said this, I would like to talk about the unintended consequences of H.B. 9 for children, for the religious freedoms in this state, and finally, the unintended consequences for New Mexico businesses. To begin, I will outline just one of the unintended consequences of H.B. 9 for children. New Mexico's marriage and paternity laws currently protect children, but H.B. 9 leaves a class of children unprotected. If H.B. 9 is passed, any child born to a woman in a heterosexual domestic partnership will not be protected by the usual presumption of the father's paternity granted in New Mexico's version of the Uniform Parentage Act, Section 40-11-5, NMSA. (According to that provision, a presumption of paternity attaches to any man who has either attempted to marry the child's mother before birth, was indeed married to the child's mother at the time of birth, or married or attempted to marry the child's mother after birth.) Paternity laws protect children at two critically important junctures: (1) upon dissolution of the marriage of their parents; and (2) upon the death of the father intestate (i.e. without a will) and without any other legal document identifying the children as his. In those situations, New Mexico law mandates the financial provision for the children by the presumed father who, for one reason or another, has never officially acknowledged his paternity. H.B. 9's "dissolution" language does not address this shortcoming in divorce situations, and does not even address the intestacy problem. Although H.B. 9 states that in domestic partnership dissolution the courts will use the same procedures as for the dissolution of marriage, it says nothing about the substantive law of marriage dissolution, including child support. At any rate, it is clear that H.B. 9 does not amend the paternity statute in any way, thus leaving children vulnerable.
And with the hundreds of statutes, regulations and policies amended by H.B. 9, how do we know for sure there aren't more areas where children's protection has been eviscerated?
H.B. 9 discriminates against religious organizations and individuals First, Section 6 does not define the terms "religious body," or "religious practice," neither does it define "interfere with" nor "regulate." No one can predict, therefore, how this so-called "religious freedom" section will be interpreted when it comes to the activities of churches and other faith-based organizations. For example, are faith-based marriage counseling organizations, not affiliated with any "religious body," guilty of "discrimination" under Section 3B of the bill if they require their counselors to be married? Are they guilty if they refuse to provide counseling to domestic partners who by definition are not married in conformance with whatever faith tradition is the basis for the counseling organization? It would seem so, and therefore H.B. 9 would force faith-based marriage counseling services to make a choice between two equally objectionable outcomes. They must either compromise their religious beliefs about marriage in order to stay in business, or stand upon their religious conviction and be forced to close their doors. Second, H.B. 9 would force ordained clergy who are unaffiliated with a church to make a similar Hobson's choice: perform same-sex "commitment ceremonies" in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, or be found guilty of "discrimination." Since Section 6 applies only to religious bodies, an unaffiliated clergyman has no religious freedom protection. Recently, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission has shown a predilection for ignoring individual religious convictions in its pursuit of a Christian photographer who, on religious grounds, turned down the business of a same-sex couple planning a "commitment ceremony."It's a reasonable assumption that H.B. 9 will be interpreted the same way, and that those clergy must either perform same-sex commitment ceremonies or be brought before the same Commission. It is also questionable whether the proponents of this bill have given any thought to the impact of H.B. 9 on New Mexico businesses. For example, New Mexico licenses professionals who engage in marriage and family therapy. (Section 61-9A-12, NMSA.) These professionals must have the requisite training in marriage counseling to qualify for licensure, so the passage of H.B. 9 raises some questions. Will these professionals be required, under pain of the "discrimination" penalties of Section 3B, to provide counseling for domestic partners, even though such professionals may have no education or training in such relationships? Will there be additional training or education required? Will there be a waiver? What if a licensed marriage and family therapist primarily uses religiously based treatment and counseling practices, which would be totally inappropriate for use with a same-sex domestic partnership? How many marriage counselors will lose their livelihood as a direct result of H.B. 9? We've already seen the impact of New Mexico's Human Rights Act on wedding photographers. With H.B. 9's discrimination provisions, what other marriage-related businesses and professions will be affected?Conclusion: H.B. 9 produces massive changes in NM law with a host of unintended consequences and unforeseen economic costs Finally, a simple Lexis database search of the New Mexico statutes and administrative code for all references to "spouse," "widow" or "widower"—the terms used in H.B. 9, reveals over 700 instances where the laws and regulations of this state will be changed according to their redefinition in H.B. 9. And that research result doesn’t take into account the other areas of New Mexico law to which H.B. 9 also mandates changes: court rules, policies, common law or any other source of civil or criminal law. Has anyone, indeed could anyone possibly, look at the wide-ranging impact of H.B. 9 on the myriad of state laws, rules, regulations, policies and common law and assure New Mexicans that there will be no adverse religious, economic, social or family consequences in addition to the ones already highlighted in this testimony?
How will adoption laws that speak of "marriage" but make no mention of "spouses," such as the step-parent adoption law, be interpreted in light of the realities of domestic partnerships? One more note before I close. Proponents of this bill rely heavily on the argument that there is a problem with hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights for unmarried couples. This is a straw man argument. Since 1997, the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act requires hospitals to recognize visitation and surrogate decision-making designations contained in advanced health-care directives. In the absence of such a directive, the statute requires hospitals to recognize "an individual in a long-term relationship with the patient…with a commitment similar to a spouse." This provision is especially suitable for meeting all hospital-related needs of unmarried couples, whether heterosexual or same-sex. If New Mexico hospitals are not complying with this law, and there is no evidence that I'm aware of that they are not, then the solution is in requiring compliance with the existing law, not passing a new one that creates more problems than it supposedly solves. The CLC thanks Mr. Miller for taking the time and effort to travel to give this testimony. Pray for Brad as he continues to fight the good fight for the Lord. February 8th updatePraise the Lord! HB 9 was not heard on 2/7/08 even though it was on the SJC agenda. One observation was that there were hardly any proponents of HB 9 at this SJC meeting and they were not wearing their tags for support of HB 9. The next SJC meeting is on Friday, 2/8/08, at 2:00 p.m. [or 1/2 hour after the Senate floor session ends per the Senate Schedule of Committee Hearings ] in Room 321. The Senate Schedule of Committee Hearings states "See Committee Room Door for Agenda". The SJC agenda for 2/8/08 was not posted on the committee room door when I checked this evening, but I will check tomorrow morning. If it is, I will call our Santa Fe witnesses. Looking forward after this session, we need to have voter registration drives that add about 25,000 voters and continue to develop our networks and coalition. Remember that one of the most important things that a U.S. president does is to make appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. February 9th update
Oh give thanks to the LORD, for He is good, For His lovingkindness is everlasting. Ps.107:1 (NASB)
Praise the Lord! HB 9 was tabled on a vote of 6-4 in SJC on February 9, 2008.
Thank You Lord for Your victory, salvation, grace, mercy, forgiveness, goodness and lovingkindness that You have bestowed on us.
Please thank the following Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee who voted to table HB 9.
Thank you Walter Bradley, Rep. Nora Espinosa, Pastor Dean Mathis, Pastor Jay McCollum, Pastor Lee Herring, Pastor Jose Vasquez, Pastor Glenn Strock, Miki Vasquez, Evelyn Manderville, Pastor and Mrs. Marvin Capehart, Brian Shaw, Dennis Alberson, Mark Burton, Matthew Chandler, Pastor Steve Smothermon, Pastor Derrick Smith, Pastor Matt Bullen, Nick Quintero and Caleb Cionelo for your prayers and testimony (or availability for testimony) at the committee hearings. (If I have left anyone out, please forgive me and let me know who I left out.)
Thank you Pastor Dean Mathis, Pastor John Loudat, Holley Lindsey, Christian Life Committee of BCNM, Susie Tsyitee, Brian Shaw, CAPE-NM, Mark Burton, Principles and the Center for Traditional Family Values NM for your communications with believers to keep them informed about HB 9. (Again, if I have left anyone out, please forgive me and let me know who I left out.)
Looking forward after this session, we need to meet as soon as possible to plan voter registration drives that add about 25,000 voters and continue to develop our networks and coalition. Remember that one of the most important things that a U.S. president does is to make appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Oh give thanks to the LORD, for He is good, For His lovingkindness is everlasting. Ps.107:1 (NASB)
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted today to Table the Domestic Partner bill, HB9! Jay McCollum, pastor of First Baptist, Gallup, was one of those speaking in opposition to the bill, and former Lt. Gov. Walter Bradley was able to talk with reporters after the vote. Both are members of the BCNM Christian Life Committee.
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
