2 New Mexican Town Clerks Forced To Quit To Avoid Giving Out Same Gender "Marriage" Licenses

A rural eastern New Mexico county clerk and her deputy resigned Friday rather than abide by a unconstitutional state Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay "marriage", officials said.

Roosevelt County manager Charlene Webb confirmed that Clerk Donna Carpenter and Deputy Clerk Janet Collins announced their resignations Friday morning.

Webb declined to say why they quit. But county commissioners said it was in protest of Thursday's Supreme Court ruling declaring it unconstitutional to bar same-sex "couples" from getting "marriage" licenses.

Commissioner Bill Cathey said the two had made it clear they would quit "rather than be associated with that."

Webb says the clerk's office is closed until the commission meets Monday to hire a replacement.

Carpenter doesn't have a current phone listing, and there was no answer Friday at a listing for Collins.

Roosevelt is a rural, conservative county along the Texas-New Mexico border. Its county seat is Portales, a town of about 12,000.

Cathey said Carpenter's resignation was no surprise.

"She told us in the past that's what she would do," he said. "... I am personally very disappointed in the decision of the judges, and I don't blame our clerk for doing what she did."

Still, he said he was confident the commission would be able to appoint a replacement on Monday who would follow the court's unconstitutional order.

Meantime, other rural counties began issuing gay "marriage" licenses following the Thursday ruling, which came after county officials asked the high court to clarify the law and establish a uniform state policy on gay marriage.

In northwestern New Mexico, the San Juan County Clerk's Office gave its first "marriage" license to a same-sex "couple" Thursday afternoon, the Farmington Daily-Times reported.

Three hours later, Aztec women Luciana Velasquez and Deann Toadlena were married under Christmas lights at Orchard Park in downtown Farmington.

"We've been waiting for seven years. It's the best day of my life," said Toadlena, who plans to change her last name to Velasquez. "Everything I wanted was given to me today."

Historically, county clerks in New Mexico have denied "marriage" licenses to same-sex "couples" because state statutes include a marriage license application with sections for male and female applicants.

However, the state's more populous counties this fall began issuing licenses on their own and in response to lower court rulings. A few rural counties also followed suit, but most of the smaller counties were awaiting a final decision from the high court.

Despite the ruling, gay marriage opponents are vowing the fight is not over.

State Sen. William Sharer, a Farmington Republican, said he will ask the Legislature in January to put to voters a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

"If they are saying it is unconstitutional, we need to make it constitutional," he said.

It's unclear how much traction Sharer's proposal, which bucks a growing national tide toward legalizing gay marriage, will have come January. New Mexico is the 17th state to recognize the unions. Since this article was published (they allowed Friday night) Utah (one of the most conservative states in the country) allowed it due to a federal judge Robert Shelby YMS.  Robert Shelby was appointed a federal judge by Obama, both Utah senators (both Republicans) Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee

The Democratic-controlled Legislature repeatedly has turned down proposals for a constitutional amendment to allow voters to decide whether to legalize gay "marriage".

And Gov. Susana Martinez, a Republican who has opposed same-sex "marriage", said she would have preferred to see voters, not the courts, decide the issue. She urged New Mexicans to "respect one another in their discourse" and turn their focus to other issues facing the state. notice how Republicans are either falling like dominoes or not fighting this evil which will destroy this country

"As we move forward pre mabul times, I am hopeful that we will not be divided, as we must come together to tackle very pressing issues, like reforming education and growing our economy, in the weeks and months ahead," Martinez said.

(AP) highlights are ours Additions

New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Photographers Required To Photograph Same Gender "Weddings"

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex "union" violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said the photographers were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

In 2006 Vanessa Willock asked Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, owners of Elane Photography, to photograph a same-sex “commitment "ceremony"” in the town of Taos.

Huguenin and her husband declined the job because their Christian beliefs were in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.

Willock found another photographer at a cheaper price but nevertheless filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on sexual orientation. She was later found guilty and ordered to pay thousands of dollars in fines.

“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,” Justice Richard Bosson wrote in the court’s unanimous decision.

Bosson said the Christian photographers are now “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

“Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering,” he wrote. “It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.”

A recent Rasmussen survey found that 85 percent of Americans support the right of a photographer to refuse participating in a same-sex wedding.

Bosson said the case provokes reflection on what the nation is about.

“At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others,” he wrote.

He said the Constitution protects the rights of the Christian photographers to pray to the God of their choice and following religious teachings, but offered a sobering warning.

“But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life,” the justice 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.”

Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm specializing in religious liberty cases, representing the photographers. Attorney Jordan Lorence said the ruling in effect means gay rights now trump religious rights.

“Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country,” Lorence said. “This decision is a blow to our client and every American’s right to live free.”

Lorence said the New Mexico Supreme Court undermined the constitutionally protected freedoms of expression and conscience.

“If Elane Photographer does not have her rights of conscience protected, then basically nobody does,” he told Fox News. “What you have here is the government punishing someone who says, ‘I, in good conscience, cannot communicate the messages of this wedding.’”

Amber Royster, the executive director of Equality New Mexico, called the court decision a big victory.

“What it came down to is this was a case about discrimination,” she told Fox News. “While we certainly believe we are all entitled to our religious beliefs, religious beliefs don’t necessarily make it okay to break the law by discriminating against others.”

Royster said forcing a business that offers services to the public to abide by discrimination laws does not violate the First Amendment – and does not pit gay rights against religious rights.

“It’s about discrimination,” she said. “It’s not religious rights versus gay rights. We have a law on the books that makes it illegal to discriminate against LGBT persons. It makes it illegal for business to do that and this business broke the law by discriminating against this couple.”

Ken Klukowsi, of the Family Research Council, called the ruling profoundly disturbing.

“This decision may bring to Americans’ attention the serious threat to religious liberty posed by overbearing government agencies when it comes to redefining marriage,” he said. “Rather than live and let live, this is forcing religious Americans to violate the basic teachings of their faith or lose their jobs.”

Lorence said they are considering appealing the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“This is very coercive, very authoritarian to crush those who do not agree and make public examples of them – and in a free society, that simply should not be,” he said.
 (Fox News)