Proponents of a law to establish domestic partnerships for unmarried couples in New Mexico — including same-sex couples — have been busy working on a proposed bill, currently standing at 906 pages, to present to the Legislature in January.

But a spokesman for Catholic bishops in the state — whose opposition to a domestic partnership bill in the Legislature's last regular session was credited for dooming the measure — remains less than enthusiastic about such legislation.

Referring to the length of the latest bill, Allen Sanchez, executive director of the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops, said recently, "I don't think anybody's had the stomach to read the whole thing."

Sanchez said Thursday that the bishops have asked Richardson not to put it on his call.

"I don't think with something that big, it will be on (the governor's) call," Sanchez said. "It's just too complicated for the 30-day session. With the amount of debate there's going to be on the taxes and the budget, I don't think anyone wants to take it on."

Eric Witt, Gov. Bill Richardson's legislative liaison, said Richardson indeed plans to put the bill on his call for the 2010 session, which convenes Jan. 19. (In 30-day legislative sessions, which occur in even-numbered years, bills that aren't related to budget, tax and spending measures must be placed on the governor's "call" before they can be considered.)

But Linda Siegle, lobbyist for Equality New Mexico, a gay and lesbian rights organization, said if the Catholic bishops decide to oppose the bill — as they did the domestic-partnership bill last year — the proposal is likely to meet the same fate as Senate Bill 12, which in February failed on a 17-25 vote in the Senate. Ten of the 27 Senate Democrats joined all 15 Republicans in opposition.

Some Democratic senators from Northern New Mexico who voted against the bill said candidly that the church's opposition is what tipped them into the opposition camp. Some who voted against SB12 had voted for domestic partnerships in the past.

Both Witt and Siegle said the reason the latest domestic partnership bill is so voluminous is that they want to avoid any mention of the state's marriage law. The chief objection the bishops had to the previous bill was that it referred to that marriage law.

In February, Sanchez told a reporter, "If they just spelled out all the rights you'd get under a domestic partnership and not refer to the marriage law, the bishops probably would drop their opposition."

And so, Witt said, "Every place in state law that mentions the word 'marriage' or 'spouse,' we're going in and adding 'or domestic partner.' It touches into probate law, adoption law and legal rights in all sorts of areas."

Said Siegle, "This 900-page bill basically does what our 11-page bill did last year," except that it also adds the "or domestic partner" phrase to various other statutes.

Richardson for several years has pushed for giving legal status to domestic partnerships. In 2007, almost immediately after the close of a 60-day session, the governor called the Legislature into special session to complete what he said was unfinished business — including a domestic-partnership bill.

The 2010 session will be the final regular session during Richardson's tenure as governor, so he may be considering domestic partnerships to be a "legacy" issue.

The issue in past years has drawn some of the biggest crowds at legislative hearings. Both supporters and opponents regularly make a big show of force at committee meetings and floor votes on domestic partnership bills.

Opponents, who claim such domestic partnerships would open the door to same-sex marriage, have legislation of their own for the 2010 session.

Sen. Bill Sharer, R-Farmington, has pre-filed a measure (Senate Joint Resolution 1), that would amend the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Such legislation is perennial in the Legislature. In 2005 the Senate passed a similar measure — in that case it was a bill and not a constitutional amendment — also sponsored by Sharer, but it fizzled in the House.

Contact Steve Terrell at 986-3037 or sterrell@sfnewmexican.com. Read his political blog at roundhouseroundup.com